Did Gibson have a double standard for Palin? Update: ABC’s edits
posted at 10:10 am on September 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In the days leading up to Charles Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, many demanded that he ask her tough questions on foreign policy and reform. Certainly that is what journalists should do with all of our elected officials and political candidates, but it seems that Gibson doesn’t always meet this standard. Two bloggers have already provided evidence that Gibson treated Democrats much differently.
First, the Anchoress has a list of questions posed by Gibson to Barack Obama three months ago, who has arguably less experience on foreign policy than Palin and no executive experience at all:
Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
Newsbusters, meanwhile, has Gibson’s interview with John Edwards in 2004 after being selected as John Kerry’s running mate. Edwards had less than a full term in the Senate as his entire political background, and no foreign-policy, military, or executive experience at all. Yet Gibson didn’t press Edwards on these points at all. In fact, the entire interview consisted of a hard-hitting interrogation … on how mean Republicans are:
GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn’t they make you mad last night?
EDWARDS: Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top. And, and actually what bothered me more than anything was in the midst of -I mean, there was, if you, if you got up and went to your refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would -you would miss everything Dick Cheney had to say about health care and everything he had to say about jobs. I mean, this is the first, we’ve had 11 straight presidents in this country, Charlie, who have created jobs. This is, until George Bush. You know, we’ve got all these folks who are having trouble with their health care premiums going up, 26, 27 hundred dollars, and what do they have to say about it? Nothing. I mean, don’t people deserve to know from their president and vice president what it is they’ve done and what it is they’re going to do? And instead, all we hear is a lot of rhetoric about, about their opponent. I mean, I just think leaders in this country, the American people deserve leaders who are better than that and do better than that.
GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?
EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. I was, I was, especially about the personal attacks against John Kerry, because they’re false. I know this guy and I know what he’s made of inside and he’s ready to lead this country.
Compare, contrast, and draw your own conclusions. The following cartoon by Kirby Garp, exclusive to Hot Air, tells the story:

We would have no problem with tough questioning to hold Republican candidates accountable if the media would perform the same task with Democrats. Yet no major media outlet has reported on Barack Obama’s long association with and defense of William Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, nor have they pressed him on his lack of executive experience or the absence of any significant political accomplishments except his own elections. We await that interview with great anticipation and no hope whatsoever of it ever occurring.
Update: Newsbusters takes a look at the full transcript and finds some interesting answers left out of the broadcast portions of the interview.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
My dear old mother-in-law has long been a Charlie Gibson fan, but he’s now “in the doghouse”.
eea on September 13, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Watch O’reilly’s interview with Obama. If he interviewed Palin and treated her the same way you guys would go apesh*t.
crr6 on September 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The absolute and utter bias and disgrace that is the MSM news just keeps getting worse and worse.
I hope the unedited portions get widely distributed on the net and cause the unholy stink against ABC that they should.
In fact, I hope Rush Limbaugh reads them on air next week and dares ABC to sue him. After all if ABC sees fit not to air the segments, then to heck with their “rights” to them.
Always Right on September 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Wow. I didn’t watch the interviews but only listened to them. People who saw them said it was obvious that there had been some heavy editing. I’ve never seen editing like this before. Shame on ABC!
Blake on September 13, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Son of Gib, thou art a tool.
Coronagold on September 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Glenn Reynolds is right… Palin and McCain need to bring their own cameras.
Lehosh on September 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
My God, I just looked at the transcript, with the parts that were edited out underlined. I note that a great deal of the expunged text concerns international relations! HUH? I thought that was the big question about Palin… so why edit out so much of what she said on it? Oh come on, we know why:
It’s because Charles Gibson is a dishonest hack, and his network is a bunch of liars! Disgusting!
drunyan8315 on September 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
It’s obvious the edits they made were intended to be harmful to Palin.
This is unreal. Do any of those morons have an ounce of integrity?
p0s3r on September 13, 2008 at 10:20 AM
No, we wouldn’t. O’Reilly, for all of his faults, treats his interview subjects the same regardless of who they are so anyone going on that show knows what to expect. The same should be true of Charlie Gibson, but obviously it was not.
We’re not complaining about hard questions – just a lack of basic professionalism on the part of Gibson, who showed a bias in both questions and demeanor.
Slublog on September 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM
The MSM could easily end up the big loser in this election. They are in trouble already, so they dig in and re-double their efforts pursuing the strategy that has lost so much market share.
fluffy on September 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Why even go to the MSM? All they do is distort the answers to their advantage. Might as well just go to FOX News. They are the most fair and have the largest audience. Forget the rest of the media.
jencab on September 13, 2008 at 10:22 AM
I hope the McCain camp makes a commercial highlighting the bad edits.
SouthernGent on September 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Democrats on an elevator too funny I dare you to just watch it once. Just like Potato chips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XivNwQ76mCs
Dr Evil on September 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Ummmm….no we wouldnt. We just want candidates to be treated the same by journalists. Are we asking too much?
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
My blood is now beyond boiling, and has gone to steam.
Nosferightu on September 13, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I heard all of those bolded portions between the two interviews. I think they played fuller portions in the midnight showing – or maybe they just edited different parts. So I assume they’ll claim they played the “whole” inteview. This is like 1984.
We need to spend the next few weeks completely dismantling this guy. My biggest concern is that the “rabbit ear” trailer park inhabitants who watch the evening news broadcast (average age is now well over 60) are going to be very hard to reach. We have to hammer this home so hard that it eventually gets back to them.
BTW, I just watched the second part of the interview. Her answers to the questions about the bridge looked very chopped up. It was more like Gibson was basically interviewing himself, and they just spliced in a few quotes from her as random commentary. Some of the “answers” he gave himself were categorically false, and I can’t believe that Governor Palin is quite as unknowledgeable about actions she personally performed as she was about Charlie Gibson’s personal definition of the ‘Bush Doctrine.’
logis on September 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM
I’m shocked.
And did somebody just compare Gibson with O’Reilly?
LOL!
Metro on September 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM
That’s a rhetorical question – right?
DamnCat on September 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I’d sure like to see somebody on Fox do an interview of Charles Gibson.
Professor Charlie owes America an apology.
Star20 on September 13, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I was surprised that Barbara Walters didn’t ask Senator McCain her standard idiotic question. “If you could be a tree what kind of a tree would be be”? That actually couldn’t have been any worse that the questions he was asked.
As for Governor Pailns interview, I think it’s great the way she gets the tough questions and it grilled mercilessly. First, she’s smart enough to handle any questions asked her. There is a reason that Senator Obama isn’t asked a hard question. He’s not really bright enough to answer anything difficult. His Puppet Masters don’t want us to know what a moron he really is until it’s to late and they are the ones de facto in power.
And second, she tough enough to take on the “big boys” in the MSM. Senator Obama get rattled by local talk radio in Chicago. If every one is so scared by Palin as the VP running mate, Image how scared they are of McCain. The thing they (The MSM) don’t seem to understand is how so may regular guys (and gals) can appreciate and respect a woman like Palin.
I for one would love to see the DNC drop Joe Biden off the ticket and have Senator Clinton put on. Would love to watch a VP debate between those two. If would finally put to rest that nonsense the Hilliary is the smartest women in america.
Tommy_G on September 13, 2008 at 10:27 AM
WTF. I had a good deal of respect for Gibson and ABC at the start of this week. Some of those edits are absolutely awful. Cutting out the middle of sentences? What journalist thinks that’s a good idea, to chop out the middle of someone’s answer?
Exact words, my ass.
BadgerHawk on September 13, 2008 at 10:27 AM
While I was watching that Gibson interview I expected him to start wagging his finger at her as if to say -’now, you know you don’t know, stop trying to pretend.’ He managed to come off as some school teacher lecturing an uppity student. She did OK in spite of that. Kudos to Sarah.
jeanie on September 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
In my opinion, this is McCain and Palin’s fault for not having a written agreement prior to the interview that required the interview to be shown unedited. They had to have seen this coming, and it seems like common sense to take such a simple move beforehand to protect yourself.
Gregor on September 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Is water wet?
Do bees bee?
Of course there are double, even triple standards in play.
sven10077 on September 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Gibson is a big time drive by Lib. He had to try to impress his drive by Lib. buddies they will never change.
thmcbb on September 13, 2008 at 10:29 AM
“Senator McCain, will you continue to send Americans to die for oil?”
“Senator Obama, do you love kittens?”
Kafir on September 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM
O’Reilly’s interview with Obama was like watching “Requiem for a Heavyweight” with Jack Palance fighting his stunt double. I’m hoping that McCain et al. are not stupid enough to have her interviewed by the Ringmeister.
horatio on September 13, 2008 at 10:30 AM
You know it was bad when even a member in good standing of the MSM calls you out:
******
capitano on September 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Ike trumps Obama…he cancels his appearance on SNL tonight. What say you, Michael Moore?
SouthernGent on September 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Just when you think you have seen it all… THIS!
It is CRIMINAL.
This type of behavior in most all other situations would be criminal.
No wonder she sounded “scripted”; everyone one of her original thoughts were cut out.
singlemalt_18 on September 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
So, she specifically rules out war and even cold war and the ABC has the nerve to edit it out and then lead the interview with “Sarah Palin wants a war with Russia.”
How is this not journalistic malpractice?
promachus on September 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
There seems to be different variations of the interview. I saw interview clips that had the sections that were bolded.
I heard that west coast had different editing on their version.I went to the ABC site and watch the entire interview so it flowed better. She came out a lot better than the stilted section on foreign policy. So did Charlie.
She is very good as advocate for ANRW and seemed to charmed Charlie as they walked along the pipeline.
The editing on the first version was horrible because it was so choppy and disconnected.
She is obvious comfortable on domestic issues. A bit vague on economic because I believe the McCain’s economic policy is vague right now and she can not commit to a policy not yet formed.
Plus she did not want to be trapped into a foreign policy doctrine not yet formed so relied on current doctrine about NATO and Georgia.
Overall a good interview for her but ABC screwed up on the first release due to bad editing and probably editorial bias.
RAH on September 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Nonsesne.
O’reilly is always a loud moth . . . other than that his interview with Obama was non-threatening and he threw a lot of softballs.
rplat on September 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Is it usual practice for interviews to be edited? Wouldn’t it be better to just have the interviewer and interviewee [sp] just sit down, have a give and take and the broadcaster show the whole thing, warts and all?
Seems to me it wasn’t so much of an interview as an infomercial to showcase Gibson’s supposed “gravitas”.
BacaDog on September 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Charlie Gibson had his Dan Rather moment…comments over at ABC on Gibson have been blistering.
d1carter on September 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Gibson needs to lose his anchor chair after this just as Obama needs to lose the election.
That way people will learn: Don’t ever try to belittle and embarrass Sarah or she will cut your career off.
econavenger on September 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
No we wouldn’t. I don’t think Palin should go anywhere near O’Reilly for a while. He’d roast her. All conservatives want is for journlaists to be fair. Treat both sides the same.
Journalists aren’t supposed to be friendly to any politicians. They’re job is to pick politicians apart. But for Gibson to lob softballs at Obama, then hurl grenades at Palin, then edit her to make her sound worse, is complete garbage.
BadgerHawk on September 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
For one thing, with Palin, O’Reilly wouldn’t have had to waste time asking questions about Wright, Ayers, Rezko (whom O’Reilly didn’t have time for). Many people, like O’Reilly, know many people and among those many acquaintances, they don’t count people such as Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and others. If Obama weren’t such a an affirmative-action candidate, his associations alone who have had him bounced from serious consideration many months ago.
Palin is middle America–at once, she’s normal and exceptional. Obama is neither.
BuckeyeSam on September 13, 2008 at 10:33 AM
crr6 on September 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
This is exactly why you Liberals are so “out in the dark” about Republicans and Conservatives! We demand that our candidates get vetted thoroughly, and we hold our own accountable when they fail us. We are tough on our own, and act as our own police force when flushing out corruption and just plain unprincipled behavior.
I have no problem with tough interviews, and will have no problem when Sarah goes on O’Reilly. All politicians should face honest and tough interviews, not just Republicans. These people (politicians) ultimately represent the people, all of the people. Every American should be concerned with Obama’s relationships with radical people; people who have a history of bashing America by way of words, speeches, preaching, and or bombings.
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Well after the interview my Palinmania was a little diminished. After reading the transcript Palin did WAY better than what was presented by ABC. She actually was very knowledgeable and didn’t, as some people said, just give canned answers.
Kronos on September 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Did you see the OReilly interview with Senator Clinton? He asked her tough questions, and for the most part didn’t let her ramble or stray from the topic itself. OReilly admitted afterward that he would never interview a male candidate the same way he’d interview a female one. Make of that what you will.
What I have a real problem with is the double standard of interviews between Democrats and Republicans. It is so blatantly obvious yet many on the Left have yet to acknowledge it. No matter – independents and undecideds CAN see it and will ultimately determine the election.
Hannity will be a friendlier forum for Palin this week. It will be interesting to see where she goes next. I would love to see her on OReilly, but suspect that she will pay Katie Couric a visit. If the campaign is smart, they had better get her ready for the Oct. debate with Senator Biden.
Palinmania is only going to increase as she is still the new face on the stage. If McCain-Palin wins the election, she will be properly credited for saving the GOP brand, increasing Alaskan tourism, raising aspirations for American women, and sparing the planet of a Obama-Biden administration.
itzWicks on September 13, 2008 at 10:34 AM
This (emphasis mine) was what I thought about during the Israel discussion. I was surprised to not have heard Gov. Palin say these words. I am relieved, yet perturbed, that these words only ended up on the cutting room floor, and she did indeed speak about this vital concept.
rslancer14 on September 13, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I think I read during the primary that Hillary had such a requirement. She was afraid of a hatchet job created through edits. Generally, she’d have the MSM in her corner, but with the media fawning over Obama, she began to see what it was like when they were no longer on her side.
Wethal on September 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM
If I didn’t know better, I’d think that ABC News was deliberately curtailing Palin’s answers to make her appear less experienced and more scripted.
Leaving out so many of her responses changes the conversation and does a dis-service to the American people. This interview by Gibson and ABC was a hack job – in more ways than one.
Read the transcript everybody – it’s a different interview.
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
dugan on September 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM
SouthernGent on September 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Where’s my fries?!?
fluffy on September 13, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Yeah, and people that walk around outside after dark are totally asking to be mugged – they should have the good sense to stay indoors. You can’t blame the muggers.
DamnCat on September 13, 2008 at 10:37 AM
After reading the transcript, it is clear that ABC heavily edited it out to promote the view that Sarah is a right-wing wacko and a country bumpkin.
My admiration for Sarah grows all the more. She is one great gal, if she can survive that without a single major gaffe to tag to her neck.
promachus on September 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Palin can be very specific as in her debates for the governor’s race. McCain’s people are trying to keep it vague which is a mistake.
She is very articulate and can probaly articulate an economic platform better than McCain. They just need to set it up and she can verbalize it.
McCAin campaign is focusing on gotcha ads and needs some better ads and more specifics now that they have the countries attention.
RAH on September 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Were I in the political spotlight I would:
1. Grant very, very few interviews. Instead I would answer most concerns and questions via a single source web site that my staff and I had 100% control over.
2. I would also publish on this same web site background information on news organizations and news “personalities” publishing/exposing their backgrounds, affiliations, off the record statements, friends, donation recipients, etc., etc.. All of this information would be obtained through a legal investigative process and would likely expose an obvious bias.
3. The few interviews I did grant to the likes of Gibson (or anyone else) would have to be aired live, unedited and uncensored. Furthermore, the interview would take place on my turf with my staff that had prepared me for the interview based on the current situation.
4. I would, in concert with an outside organization, own the copyrights to the interview and license the content to the interviewing “news” organization and any other “news” organization that wished to use the content. If I believed that ABC (or any other “news” organization) edited my copyrighted material in a way that was meant to defame or mislead – you guessed it – I would let the outside organization that shared copyright ownership to the interview take them to court where their bias would be further publicly exposed for which they would pay in credibility and hard dollars.
These news people and organizations are dolts. They can and should be challenged with unrelenting aggression by the right.
Just my opinion.
watson007 on September 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
You can if there’s been 487 muggings on the same street corner in the last week, and they still decide to walk that street at 3:00am while waving cash in the air and yelling “here I am, here I am, please rob me!”
That’s basically what Palin did by agreeing to this interview without an agreement in writing.
Gregor on September 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Watch O’reilly’s interview with Obama. If he interviewed Palin and treated her the same way you guys would go apesh*t.
crr6 on September 13, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Uh, not so much, my friend. I would expect O’Reilly to ask tough questions of ANY candidate. Hussein has been given a free pass by our leftist media and you know it. They have not done ONE significant story on his association with Bill Ayers, an anti-American, murdering terrorist who should be in prison, yet he sucks off the teat of the American dime as an “esteemed” university professor.
Sarah Palin’s worst association is with a dead moose. Better company than Bill Ayers, The Reverand Wrong, Louise FairyCon and Phlegm the Phish Eater.
If the MSM did their job dispassionately and neutrally, as the claim to be, Barry would not be their nominee and you might stand a better chance of getting the White House with Her Thighness.
Jarhead68 on September 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
These guys like Gibson all go to same cocktail parties and listen to the same people who hate conservatives.I love that Palin is now going to talk to Hannity ( a big FU to the MSM).
Palin is also going to need to remember that she will not only be debating Biden but Gwen Ifill as well- don’t whine but get in Ifiells face if needed.
These people thought their Messiah was a lock and Palin has upset them to the point of insanity.
jjshaka on September 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Shady. Very shady.
SoulGlo on September 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I do not for the life of me understand why the MSM is allowed, day after day, year after year, to simply get away with this. Us griping about it is not a serious threat to their power. They seem to be the only business in the country to which truth in advertising laws do not apply. Why is that?
Halley on September 13, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Having now read the transcripts, I am even more impressed with Palin, and less impressed with Gibson. This is going to leave a mark on ABC News, and they have only themselves to blame.
Whatever happened to real journalism in America anymore? Has the MSM totally abandoned it? Thank goodness for Talk Radio, Drudge, Fox News, Hot Air, and the rest of the New Media.
itzWicks on September 13, 2008 at 10:42 AM
watson007 on September 13, 2008 at 10:38 AM
How about insisting all interviews be broadcast live? It wouldn’t change the tone of the questioning, but it would eliminate unfair editing.
Disturb the Universe on September 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Awww are the questions too tough for little Sarah?
I guess the one about entitlements was. She had no idea what they even were.
Dave Rywall on September 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I was hoping the gov would nudge charlie into the water when they were on the dock – but alas I realized he is so full of hot air he’d just float.
Fuquay Steve on September 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Unfortunately, it won’t. Most of the people who will actually take the time to read the transcript are junkies like us. All mom and pop know is what they see on TV.
BacaDog on September 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I support this policy for all candidates. Unfortunately, considering the biographical components in this interview, the trip to her High School, etc, it wasn’t exactly right opportunity for live, but they should think about that in the future.
Looking at the transcript, I have to say she did better then even I thought. I am impressed.
Spirit of 1776 on September 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Charles Gibson is just another tool for the Messiah. I watched all interviews and the man is a total fool. We don’t even turn on the MSM on ABC, NBC, or CBS anymore. All it is, is cheerleading for Barry. Our MSM is a complete disgrace and Gibson is a stupid hack.
UnEasyRider on September 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
E W M A …a person who just realized what a lying bunch of hacks the MSM is, and isn’t going to turn on the Alphabets networks again – ever!!
drunyan8315 on September 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Hardly. Would have called it a good interview.
If you would like to reference anything that Obama said that was edited out, I’ll be happy to re-evaluate my view of that interview as well.
Spirit of 1776 on September 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM
In fact, as voters we should be demanding tough questioning of all candidates. It’s much more relevant to ask the candidate about Russia, NATO, and the economy than how their family feels!
highhopes on September 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Is it usual practice for interviews to be edited? Wouldn’t it be better to just have the interviewer and interviewee [sp] just sit down, have a give and take and the broadcaster show the whole thing, warts and all?
Seems to me it wasn’t so much of an interview as an infomercial to showcase Gibson’s supposed “gravitas”.
BacaDog on September 13, 2008 at 10:32 AM
You echo exactly what Rush Limbaugh told a caller yesteday. Gibson was putting on a show for the bigshots and his friends in the media. Nothing else. He wanted to show them that he could eat a conservative’s lunch. Even with the editing, most think he failed.
Jarhead68 on September 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Gibson= left wing tool
grapeknutz on September 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Watch O’reilly’s interview with Obama. If he interviewed Palin and treated her the same way you guys would go apesh*t.
BOO HOO. IT WAS SO MEAN AND NASTY THAT OBAMA LAUGHED HIS A** OFF THE WHOLE WAY THROUGH. WAAAA….
lisalj on September 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Can’t wait for the debate
Moderator… Senator Biden…tell us why you are such a great Senator.
Moderator… Governor Palin…tell us why you are a book banning Christian extremist with no experience for the job.
sabbott on September 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Charlie Gibson got the kind of response he was looking for after selectively editing Gov Palins’s Russia remarks.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/12/europe/georgia.php
econavenger on September 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
before Barry went on the O’Reilly show, they all agreed to show the full interview, without any editing. Sarah/Mccain should do the same
custer on September 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
She faced them, more than you can say about your candidate. Oh wait, you are Canadian, you don’t have a candidate.
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
At this point, 30% of the country hates Palin because she torpedoes their notion of feminism and what being an American is all about. Screw ‘em. They can mumble to themselves and they sit curled up on their couches watching Chris Matthews, Olberman, and now Rachel Maddow every night.
Meanwhile, half the country already loves Palin. Period.
The remaining 20% may now be scratching their heads about Palin, but they’re smart enough to see that the MSM and the putzes on cable news programs are so decidedly deranged and in the tank for Obama that they’ll resolve any doubts (and ultimately there will be few) in favor of Palin. These people will look to their left at Code Pink, tree huggers, 94% blacks voting for Obama simply because he’s black, ACORN, Wright, Ayers, Rezko, community-organizing shakedown artists and conclude, “I’m not down with that; they don’t reflect my values.”
And let’s not forget, our #1 guy actually knows foreign policy and military affairs, and Biden, despite his long tenure on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, has gotten too many things wrong to provide anyone any encouragement that he’ll be much of a backstop for Obama.
BuckeyeSam on September 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Levin’s transcript highlighted something Charlie said, that at the time I thought was strange:
We didn’t hear this bit:
Charlie fails to realize that the US is exceptional in combining the roles of Head of State and Head of Government in a single office (President).
Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc., but cannot negotiate on behalf of her dominions. For that, one must talk to Gordon Brown, Stephen Harper, Kevin Rudd, and Helen Clark, respectively.
Bundespräsident Horst Köhler is the Head of State of Germany, but Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel is the one who shows up at G8 meetings to have her shoulders rubbed by George W. Bush (which is exactly the same as Bill Clinton getting a BJ from an intern).
The expanded transcript just shows how clueless Charlie is.
The Monster on September 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM
You all act as if it is a surprise that ABC is partisan. Remember the 2004 elections- CBS fabricated memos but ABC was the news organization that came out with the policy that reporters could treat Kerry more favorably than GWB. Apparently that policy is still in effect. Gibson’s questions to Palin are all questions that should be put to Obama at some point in this election cycle.
highhopes on September 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I think O’Reilly should interview Gibson.
Amy Proctor on September 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Dr. Goebbels school of film editing
Hening on September 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM
She faced them, more than you can say about your candidate. Oh wait, you are Canadian, you don’t have a candidate.
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 10:49 AM
—————
That you refuse to acknowledge that Palin’s performance in this interview is less than impressive shows just how huge your party blinders are. With every interview she reveals more and more that she is worth less and less. She was a campaign choice, not a governing choice. How irresponsible of the Republicans to not put country first.
Dave Rywall on September 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM
If she can’t answer the questions, Dave, why not just show it? If she can answer the questions, Dave, why not just show it?
Personally, I think he could have been much more probing. My problem is why not just show the entire unedited interview, warts and all and let the folks interpret the results.
Surely you don’t prescribe to simple unfairness.
BacaDog on September 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Yes, I would, but for different reasons. O’Reilly never interviews anybody but O’Reilly. The guest has to fight to be heard over Bloviating Bill.
FalseProfit on September 13, 2008 at 10:52 AM
He is a lib, of course he does
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 10:53 AM
ABC needs its licensing removed after this.
That was an absolute abortion. Even the intro at 10 PM last night was a hack job. They gave the Daily Kos talking points with none of the facts in it.
What a remarkably stupid hatchet job by ABC.
We should all write letters.
TheHat on September 13, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Kudos to Kirby Garp for that cartoon. I hope the term “Gotcha Bucket” catches on.
highhopes on September 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Two points:
1. Did Gov. Palin say “uh”, ever?
2. If you look closely at the window, you’ll see a reflection, from time to time, of Lucy Ramirez wearing a large “Go Danny!” button.
BobMbx on September 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Classy.
labwriter on September 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Who pays attention to these TV network Northeast corridor uber-elite clowns anyway? Seriously.
Fletch54 on September 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
She did fine, especially after reading the unedited transcript. Thankfully she didnt say anything like “Well…ummm..what can I say?” or “That’s ummmm above my paygrade”
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
So the MSM screams that Gov. Palin needs to be interviewed. So she agreed. So they didn’t like her answers. So they edited the interview. So why should Sen McCain, Gov. Palin, or any other Republican/Conservative person agree to be interviewed by any other MSM venue?
conservative educator on September 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Don’t feed the Rywall, folks.
Slublog on September 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Don’t Canadians have better things to do on a Saturday morning than lecturing Americans about who and how they elect their leaders?
highhopes on September 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Mr Gibson could redeem himself by asking one question of Mr 0bama:
Why was there no mention of the HIV test results in the famous medical clearance one-page letter?
LaMonte on September 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Someone needs to get the unedited tape… and cut it up into single question and issue You tube type videos…
Most short, with the EDITED answer, then the real answer… and point out what the Headline said, vs. what she actualy said…
The Media understands that most only really reatain the FIRST impression made. So most folks will remember her as a War monger, because thats what the first headline and edit they saw was…
Just like the US story… or the National Enquirer story… truth does not matter if the FIRST impression (headline) is negative because that is what you mind first build that train of memory upon.
Romeo13 on September 13, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This screams for a side by side A|B comparison for a commercial or for one of our intrepid radio talk show hosts to compile. Good work.
Mojave Mark on September 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
This is because Democrats are like little kids who can’t take serious questions, while Republicans are the adults who actually are responsible and need to answer the tough questions, make the tough decisions, and should hold the real power. Isn’t that what Charlie basically says in these interviews?
Realistically, though, Gibson does seem to have a double standard.
indythinker on September 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
You can’t blame him for worrying that Palin will Putin the Northwest Territory and Alberta.
Limerick on September 13, 2008 at 10:58 AM
These edits were not primarily about cutting down the length of the interview, they were about making Palin look as ignorant and reckless as possible. Some of her comments were spliced mid-sentence to make her look way more hawkish than she actually is. The whole section on Georgia is a deliberate distortion.
CanadianGuy on September 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »