So, why say it?

Structure fires happen. Sometimes it's just an overloaded electrical outlet, sometimes it's carelessness with cooking, sometimes it's arson. You can seldom tell what the cause was until a competent investigation has been carried out. Almost always in the wake of a fire, even if arson is suspected, some local authority will make this kind of initial statement, as reported in an AP news story:

No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside, according to Central Mat-Su Fire Chief James Steele.

* * *

"It's hard to say at this point. Everything is just speculation," he said. "We have no information on intent or motive."

Just speculation. Investigation pending. Let us get on with our work.

Which is why I find it rather telling that someone involved with the structure in question - a church - finds it necessary to say this:

Palin, who was not at the church at the time of the fire, stopped by Saturday. Her spokesman, Bill McAllister, said in a statement that Palin told an assistant pastor she was sorry if the fire was connected to the "undeserved negative attention" the church has received since she became the vice presidential candidate Aug. 29.

Or why the AP felt it necessary to include this explanatory paragraph:

The 1,000-member evangelical church was the subject of intense scrutiny after Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Early in Palin's campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Focus on the Family "Love Won Out Conference" in Anchorage. The conference promised to "help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome."

OK, it's the church of Gov. Sarah Palin. Fine - that does make it somewhat newsworthy. But why did the Governor's spokesperson have to make the insinuation that the suspected arson was connected with her vice-presidential campaign? And why did the AP see fit to have to mention that one particular passage in a church bulletin? Was that the only item mentioned in the church bulletin during that entire time? Maybe some rival organization had a score to settle over a competing bake sale, or a choir from another church resented the extra rehearsals that the Wasilla Baptists were holding in preparation for an upcoming competition. Why not mention *all* such possible causes for some nutcase to want to torch a church?

Why? Well, could it possibly be because there is a bias at the AP, the reporter and all of his or her supervisors hating gays and wanting to smear them? And that the Gov. is still wanting to do everything possible to keep her name before the public, and is perfectly willing to trade on such a tragedy to do so?

Unfair for me to jump to those conclusions with such scant evidence? Sure it is. But no less unfair than the smears in the news item, or the behavior of the Governor's office, until *solid* evidence is found which leads to any sort of such conclusions.

Jim Downey