Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s relationship with the media is rockier than the one in “Twilight.”

Palin has at once thrust herself into the American media spotlight while admonishing the American media for reporting on her. Like NBA players, she apparently has never committed a foul in her life and is incredulous every time someone says otherwise.

The Springfield News-Leader reported the media is barred from covering Palin’s Dec. 2 speech at the College of the Ozarks as part of her contract with the private school.

Palin has recently been more selective with her contact with the media. In mid-November, she had a series of interviews with Fox News right-wing pundits Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. Tough crowd.

But for every softball interview with conservatives at Fox News, there’s an idiotic response to a Canadian comedian’s prank or a falsehood about death panels.

She told Canadian comedian Mary Walsh — who was in character as conservative Marg Delahunty — that Canada should get rid of its health care system. The same system that 82 percent of Canadians polled said was better than the United States’.

She previously fell victim to a November 2008 joke, when Canadian comedians Marc-Antoine Audette and Sebastien Trudel prank-called Palin as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.

Perhaps Palin should bar sneaky comedians from covering her speech. But barring the media?

President Barack Obama’s Fox News embargo did not work out in his favor and was eventually dropped. Why should Palin’s disdain for the media as a whole be received any better?

Palin has said some outrageous things, such as her claim of death panels back in August, and often with audio or video. If the media didn’t report it because it might hurt her image, it would be biased journalism.

She also took issue with The Associated Press’ decision to dedicate 11 reporters to fact-check her book, calling it “opposition research.” Heaven forbid she be contradicted with something so petty as facts.

But who’s more likely to make something up? The journalist who reports on someone’s actions and words or the person saying those words and committing those acts?

The most reliable witness in a trial is not the defendant, and the defendant’s family members do not make good jurors. So why should we believe the subjects of articles more than the people who write them?

The words of a former politician and current ideologue should not hold more weight than a reporter’s article. Perhaps the AP should let Palin write a review of her own book, as that sounds like her idea of an unbiased way of doing so.

Obviously media coverage can be, and is, flawed. But to insinuate that reporting is biased because it’s about your mistakes and not your accomplishments is ludicrous.

There is no big corporate conspiracy to sabotage Palin. The media don’t hold secret meetings underwater to discuss new ways to bias their reporters’ stories against her while they cackle evilly.

At least I think not. Someone should check on that.

Chris points out that all claims by politicians/ideologues, should be fact-checked. Check his facts and contact him at cogino@asu.edu