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 | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
What’s the point all these threads on Gibson? It’s like spending three days researching NFL stats and recent performance records to make the argument that the Patriots may be worse off with Cassel then Brady. Like we didn’t know the majority of the media, Gibson included, may have a double standard? What’s moaning about Gibson to us and to ourselves going to change? All it does it make us look a little ridiculous when we point out Obama’s constant whining.
Gibson’s interview showed his arrogance and Palin’s response was weak and at the end of it, it doesn’t appear that it changed the dynamics of the election one iota. Move on.
lowandslow on September 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Alot.
BacaDog on September 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Bottom line – ABC did a hatchet job on the editing. And it changed the flow and continuity of the interview.
I still have no major problem with the line of questioning. I’d just like to see other candidates questioned in the same manner (instead of asking, “gee what does it feel like to win a primary?” – duhhhh.).
dugan on September 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Very appropriate toon. Highlights the major weakness with the leftist MSM, they cannot effectively communicate without queue (idiot) cards or a prepared (planted) interview.
An appropriate response from Gov. Palin would have been “Mr. Gibson are you having trouble looking me in the eyes, or did I just exposed you?”
Or another set of bubbles should have been the following,
“There’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza, there’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza, oops Ms. Palin.”
“Well fix it just fix it, just fix it Charlie”
“With what shall I fix it dear Liza, With what shall I fix it dear Liza, oops Ms. Palin?”
We all know the rest of the lyrics-thank you Mr. Belefonte.
MSGTAS on September 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
American
Broadcasting
Chopshop
Elric66 on September 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Totally OT:
LINK
mad saint jack on September 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I guarantee you that the campaign has at least an audio recording of their own of the sit-down interview segments. Does anyone know how Mark Levin got the full, unedited transcript?
CanadianGuy on September 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Awww are the questions too tough for little Sarah?
Dave Rywall on September 13, 2008 at 10:45 AM
I’ve been reading your posts now dating back to the early days of Captains Quarters. Based on these years of reading your thoughts, I’d feel it’s safe to say that little Sarah is not a whiner, nor a sissy; if fact, Sarah would likely face you down and make you cower back into a corner, while you shout at her to stop being so damn mean to you.
Sarah is not out there complaining about the mean old Gibson. On the contrary, Sarah is busy campaigning for John McCain. The rest of us have the right to tell it as we see it; call it for what it is. If you have some actual data (we call them facts here in America) that would indicate the American media has played this on equal terms, then feel free to join in the debate Rywall. Otherwise, it continues to appear that you come here simply to stick your finger in the eye; so to speak.
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
watson007 said:
YES! Maybe you could get Edwards to “channel” Biden for plagerism.
conservative educator on September 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
We are conservative Americans. We wish to make the United States a truly free and truly prosperous republic. Your liberal blathering is no match for our political weaponry – it will be defeated and assimilated into the mainstream of normal American life.
Obama’s strength is grossly overestimated and ultimately irrelevant. He will be destroyed in November.
Our victory is inevitable. Resistance is futile.
ManlyRash on September 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM
lowandslow on September 13, 2008 at 10:59 AM
If you don’t understand the importance of these threads pointing out the facts about this type of biased coverage, then you are either a troll, or you need to shut your brain down and just keep reading and learning.
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 11:05 AM
What’s the point of further exposing Gibson? Charlie Boy needs to pay for that cheap attempt to boost his career at the expense of his country so other younger media punks learn from his mistake.
econavenger on September 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Wish people would drop the “We won the cold war without a shot fired” meme. Seem to remember a few proxy wars in Afghanistan, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, not to mention plenty of skulduggery in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
sleepyhead on September 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Of course he did. She’s conservative. Charlie Gibson can’t go around letting conservatives off the hook, just as he can’t go around grilling liberals in the way he did Palin.
holygoat on September 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Like CBS before them, ABC is now being forced to decide if these fabrications are egregious enough for the Rather option, or whether this is just business as usual at ABC.
jeff_from_mpls on September 13, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Oh, she’s ready. Here’s a preview of the debate.
ManlyRash on September 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Next question: what was left on the cutting room floor after the Obama interview?
dugan on September 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
It isn’t a bad thing to keep the ABC perfidy in front of the HA audience for a while. Lots of people lurk and never post, so there is a benefit. Plus, there is always the option of not reading threads that bother you. I’m always amused at the HA members who want to tell Ed and AP how to run their blog.
a capella on September 13, 2008 at 11:11 AM
O’Reilly’s interview was a POS that served no purpose other than to demonstrate what a belligerent moron is and bolster his ratings. Many of the question were LONG overdue, but Bill blundered around with them like a 3 year old having a tantrum before making a further ass of himself by apologizing for asking.
There… are you happy? I sent the same thing to Bill O along with countless other people, which is why the moron is whining daily on his show about the “right wing nuts” who are complaining and seeking pity for his pathetic and self aggrandizing BS by saying “if I didn’t do it then, I might not have had another chance” which clearly demonstrates that common sense and ethics are nothing compared to Bill’s overinflated sense of self worth.
That said, there is no excuse for Gibson’s completely outrageous, condescending hatchet job. Unlike O’Reilly, who no one confuses with a legitimate news person, Gibson is supposed to be the anchor of on the the primary news outlet in the country. Yet, he conducted himself like a Daily Kos commenter after a botched lobotomy. ABC’s edits are further inexcusable.
I have never been so angry at a news organization in my life.
Damiano on September 13, 2008 at 11:11 AM
One of the advantages of being an anchor is to meet a wide variety of people. Charlie should contact the leading scientists of today and plead with them to start genetically engineer camels to become very small. He should also contact his industrialist friends to start making extremely large needles for the crap he spewed this week will come back to haunt him.
Fuquay Steve on September 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I’m gonna be as terse as possible with that hanging curveball.
“I’m a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER DAMNIT!”
sven10077 on September 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Hold institutions accountable for borderline fraudulent behaviour is not whining.
CanadianGuy on September 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
ManlyRash- still love that post! BTW who let the troll in, doesn’t he have a bridge to play under?
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Your choice of words suggests you see our “proxy wars” as illicit.
Which causes me to suspect you regret that we won the cold war without a shot being fired.
Even Gorbachev believed it was best for the cold war to end as it did. Do you realize how far out on the fringe your view is?
Let me guess, you’re a democrat? No wait, I bet you think that labels are “too constricting.”
jeff_from_mpls on September 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I suggest the we email ABC and DEMAND that they run the interview in it’s entirity… I also say that we should start posting the deleted segments at the ABC site where they are talking about the interview.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5787748&page=1
reshas1 on September 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
He crawled in through the pet-access portal in the back door. We had the site fumigated a week ago, but apparently he survived.
ManlyRash on September 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Wow! That was some serious,deliberate editing in my opinion. Precisely why I don’t watch the All Barack Channel!
sheesh on September 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I’m pretty sure Dave was a Pierre Trudeau groupie. Look what he did for Canada.
a capella on September 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
The material just writes itself, doesn’t it?
“and, and, uh, this is just, uh, the chickens coming home to roost…, uh, Charlie can we, uh, cut that?”
jeff_from_mpls on September 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
WHY DID THEY PUT HER ON HIS SHOW FIRST?
Scarborough would’ve been so much better.
Chris Wallace is getting too much like his father.
Brit Hume would be fair and tough. He is so wonderful!
Bret Baer (?)a descent young man would’ve done a good job.
Did anyone else notice the condescending way charlie not only asked the question, but looked down his nose at her, over his glasses, and then explained like she was really tooooooo dumb to know the answer.
I didn’t watch any of it, just the clips on fox. I will be watching Sean interview her.
Bambi on September 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Is that true, Dave? Are you not an American citizen? Aside from your self-discrediting views, this will be another hatchet-notch in the forehead of your irrelevance.
As for Governor Palin, your points are subjective and wandering. “less than impressive”, “party blinders”, “worth less” – don’t you have anything of substance to refer to, Dave? The same can be said of any candidate by partisans of the opponent.
Your words, as so often with you, are without substance or meaning.
Jaibones on September 13, 2008 at 11:16 AM
someone throw the lock on the pet-access portal!! I ran out of DDT!
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Understand the importance? Are you that deluded to think multiple threads complaining about the medias bias to people already aware of it is going to change anything? You’re telling me threads with 800 comments on what a putz Gibson is is really important? All this while inflating your own intelligence and self importance? The dumbing down of Hat Air just keeps on rolling.
lowandslow on September 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I miss Tony Snow terribly.
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Clarification: as for being a non-citizen, Dave, I don’t discredit your point of view, except in that you only argue as a partisan Democrat voter, and you are neither a partisan Democrat nor a voter.
Is there anything that you do which credits you, rather than discredits you? Give me hard examples if you can; we have other, qualified candidates for commentary to consider here.
Jaibones on September 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Gee, McPalin will have to invite the entire Washington Press Corp into the Lincoln Bedroom since they are all helping greatly in getting them elected.
RobCon on September 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
We know who and what Sarah Palin is, but, who in the hell is Charlie Gibson?
byteshredder on September 13, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Guess who thinks we’re all stupid? lowandslow.
jeff_from_mpls on September 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I’m with Keemo. It’s important to stop, call them out, point out the outrages, so that we can easily refer to them the next time around rather than performing two times or three times the work when we decide that we’re really, really, really fed up.
If I were in McCain’s camp, I’d have a team comparing the transcript, what was televised, and (if provided by ABC) the unedited film. I’d then shore of Palin on any weak reponses and, as important, I’d flag where Gibson screwed up.
Whether it was in Gibson’s substance or in his style, I’d coach Palin so that when reporters pose questions about the interview she would immediately cut them off and instruct them about what she really said, what Gibson really knows and said, and how Gibson really treated her. Beyond that, if I were Palin, I’d tell reporters that I won’t comment further on that question until that reporter has requested and reviewed the full interview. Screw ‘em.
BuckeyeSam on September 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Sounds like you need your own blog. Hop to it.
a capella on September 13, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I think more importantly, who is Barack Obama? I laud Palin for giving this interview. She answered many, many policy and hot-button topics. I still don’t think we know squat about Obama (and that after 19 months) – and he’s the one running for President!
dugan on September 13, 2008 at 11:26 AM
lowandslow on September 13, 2008 at 11:18 AM
That kind of anger is a dead give away… Those who come here and tell the hosts how and what to do with their blog, drip of “elitism”, which is another dead give away.
Take a chill pill, or crawl back through the doggy door.
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 11:27 AM
LOL, and you know how this would be reported, right? That she clearly was a dunderhead, and her reaction to being asked about just proves that she’s embarrassed, knows that she was a dunderhead in the Gibson interview, and is “being protected from further proving herself to be a dunderhead by not answering questions, omgz”.
Can’t win.
Midas on September 13, 2008 at 11:27 AM
ABC = Agenda By Charlie
Josiah on September 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The point is determining whether or not ABC’s editing of the interview contributed to the impression that Palin’s response was weak. I have to say that my initial impression was the Palin did poorly and I posted comments to that effect on this forum.
However, my initial impressions were based on the highly-edited clips that were shown in the ABC evening news; not the less-edited more extensive clips that were shown in Nightline and, I understand, are available online.
The contrast between the two versions is like night and day. I think any fair evaluation of Palin’s performance should be based on the FULL transcript, not on an edited version.
If one does this, I think Palin comes off look pretty well. If my initial grade for her performance was C-, I would up it to a solid B/B+ based on the extended interview.
PackerBronco on September 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Republicans just have to start insisting on a couple of things:
– live interviews *only* – nothing that can be edited ala Michael Moore tactics to clip the thing up and show them in the worst possible light.
– a big old clock with a second hand on it running behind both of them, everyone on-screen at the same time – something to evidence that clips have been edited, etc.
I don’t know how many leftie retards I’ve already interacted with that were mocking Palin’s comments; “OMGZ, she thinks she’s got foreign policy cred because “well, we can SEE Russia from Alaska!”
“You know that’s not the whole response, right?”
“OMGZ, she’s so stupid, how can you support her?”
*sigh*
Midas on September 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Josiah on September 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM
ABC
Ambushed By Charlie
econavenger on September 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM
We have an “enemy within” our own ranks. Denial of this is what we have engaged in for decades now. Dan Rathers & CBS (Rathergate) was not a mystical moment, a fiction film made for television; no, it was an attempt by an entire network to sway an American presidential election. The NYT exposing a top secret program that allowed the right people to follow the money trail to terrorists organizations, was not a fiction film made for television; no, it was a direct attack and a direct hit on our governments attempts to protect the American people, as well as a direct hit on all allies involved with the program.
These are not made up events; these events really took place Mr. Iowandslow….
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM
NO WONDER the editing looked like it was done with a chainsaw!
Some answers were to different questions!
That’s so typical.
tru2tx on September 13, 2008 at 11:35 AM
“Watch O’reilly’s interview with Obama. If he interviewed Palin and treated her the same way you guys would go apesh*t.”
Um no we wouldn’t because it would be FAIR. Unlike leftists, people who support Palin don’t want her softballed and treated with kid gloves. We will still like her if she makes mistakes and see nothing wrong with good tough interviews which benefit everyone.
What we don’t like is is the absolute double standard as evidenced by gibsons three interviews.
America1st on September 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
What I am guessing is that they wanted to get the worst out of the way early. It’s been said, and I agree, that this interview set a bar. All she had to do was get over it and everyone knew it would be a hatchet job. On the positive side, she did well and everyone has to reach quite a bit to criticize her. People are buzzing about context, content, Gibson’s attitude problem, etc. Since Gibson concentrated solely on smears, there is no ground left to cover there.
The next interviews will have to move on and she has the opportunity to set the record straight. I would expect to see some of this with Hannity this week.
Gibson still should be shot though. If he likes communism so much, send his worthless ass to China.
Damiano on September 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Bristol’s mom has got it going on.
I know that might be wrong but I have been waiting so long…
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-know-it-might-be-wrong-but-im-in-love.html
Mr. Joe on September 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
I love sics.
Speaking of stupid, my hometown newspaper is The Cincinnati Enquirer. Today, there was letter to the editor from a woman from an affluent suburb who, I’m going to assume (you’ll have to trust me), is some white suburbanite who is suffering from white guilt.
At any rate, she wrote that she “witnessed several disturbing moments in the ABC Charlie Gibson/Sarah Palin interview….” According to the writer, “perhaps the most disturbing was the blank look and clueless answer Governor Palin provided when asked what she thought of the Bush Doctrine.”
She continued: “I would have expected that any elected official in the Republican party would have, by now, a rudimentary understanding of the doctrine laid out by the Bush administration in 2002 that affects the lives of so many American servicemen and women, including her son.”
Now, I have my problems with The Cincinnati Enquirer, but one thing it does right is that it picks up Charles Krauthammer as a syndicated columnist. So, as I turned over the editorial page cursing at this dimwit, I howled when I saw Krauthammer’s column, “Condescending Gibson was wrong about Bush doctrine.”
Somewhere, I could hear Homer Simpson in the distance screaming, “D’oh!”
BuckeyeSam on September 13, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Nope, but close. I think the digit you want is his thumb. And it’s not in the eye, it’s up his ***.
Y-not on September 13, 2008 at 11:41 AM
They probably put her on this show because it’s the old dinasaur media, for people who don’t have cable, and ole Charlie used to be sort of impartial, guess not anymore. She needs to stick to Hannity, Oreilly, Hume, etc. Plus, as I heard what Obama did with Oreilly, no editing out ANYTHING. Wonder what the rules were with the Gibson interview???
reshas1 on September 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
They’re not even close to that yet. Changing a network anchor is worth about as much to the left as losing 10 senators. We have to push this all the way. We have enough now to do damage, but I think after all of the transcripts are up we’ll have enough to torpedo him. (I’m pretty sure that ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ segment was butchered beyond recognition.)
But this is going nowhere without a hell of a lot of effort from us. An amateurishly forged letter is easy to get through to even the thinkest skulls, but a hatched-up video tape is too fuzy to be immediately comprehended by World News’s audience.
logis on September 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Go here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2081359/posts to see all the questions Gibson asked in his interviews with Obama and Palin, and form your own opinion. Just as a taste, the two lead questions were these:
1. To Obama: “Senator, I’m curious about your feelings last night. It was an historic moment. Has it sunk in yet?”
2. To Palin: “Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say ‘I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?’” (And, of course, the “can you look the country in the eye” phase suggests that if she does so, he thinks she’s probably lying.)
Many have said Gibson’s “Bush Doctrine” question was ambiguous. It was. What nobody I have yet seen has noted, however, is that Palin instantaneously did what you are supposed to do in those circumstances. She used a perception check, or, in other words, she asked him to step down the abstraction ladder (from general to specific) and clarify what he meant by “Bush Doctrine.” At first, of course, he did not — which quite naturally led to hesitation on her part.
So was it, intentionally or not, a “Gotcha” question? I’d say “Yes.” It could initially been asked “What do you think about the Bush Doctrine of launching preemptive strikes against perceived imminent threats?” Or, it could have immediatedly been amplified when Palin asked for clarification. It was not. Instead, Gibson threw the question back at her, asking her what she thought it meant. And I would say the apparent reason why he did so was was to try to leave Palin dangling in the wind.
Furthermore, Gibson’s underlying assumption in this interview seemed to be that Palin, and Palin alone, would be expected to know, research, and do everything if she became president. Clearly, that is fallacious. As a CEO, her major responsibilities would be 1) picking good staff, 2) delegating responsibilities, and 3) making good decisions.
As to number 1, should McCain die, Palin would immediately inherit his staff. And she could take as long as she needed to replace them, if that was what she wanted. As to 2 and 3, she has had experience with both since high school (as a championship point guard — whose job it was to run her team). Later, as mayor and governor, she has had experience in all three areas. Her success in them can be seen in her accomplishments and constituent satisfaction levels.
Indeed, she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. And her record of making good decisions is better also. She has not been friends, let alone good friends, with crooks, revolutionaries, or racists. Obama has. She has never attempted to steal another’s identity, nor plagiarize his works. Biden has.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 13, 2008 at 11:42 AM
The Gibson doctrine, as I understand it, is to ask tough, gotcha questions of Republicans, and to place softball questions on a tee for Democrats.
thebriand on September 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Palin: Gets tough questions, doesn’t do so well with her answers.
Hotair: Completely ignores Palin’s performance, only complains that her questions were tougher than Obama’s.
Dave Rywall on September 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Nobody really thought ABC was going to be fair did they? The liberal commie media was whining that they were not getting a shot at Palin, well they got their shot and they missed. On to the debates.
Yes, Gibson is an shameless arrogant liberal tool, but we already knew that.
Maxx on September 13, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Voter reaction of Obama’s interview on O’Reilly was measured to be very positive….for O’Reilly. They thought he did great and Obama did not. That’s the exact outcome Charlie was shooting for before he couldn’t help himself.
ABC:
Appropriating
Barack’s
Condescension
econavenger on September 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Dave Rywall- did you read the unedited interview? Don’t know why I’m bothering…
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Dave Rywall is just a scumbag troll and best ignored. Let him stew in his own vile and ignorance. Charlene Gibson needs to be exposed for the liar he is.
bill30097 on September 13, 2008 at 11:47 AM
I am soooo happy it was tough. It was exactly what she needed, and supporters of McCain/Palin needed.
MayBee on September 13, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I used to like Charlie Gibson as GMA host, and still somewhat like him as a news anchor. But this interview with Sarah, especially when compared to his interview with Obama, shows his true color. So much for fairness.
miron on September 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Okay, so you made your point about Palin’s performance. Fine, we understand your opinion on that. Now, here’s a question for you: As you review the list of questions given to Obama, do you feel that they provide any information on Obama’s qualifications for the office? And if not, what is the point of those questions?
PackerBronco on September 13, 2008 at 11:51 AM
PackerBronco- hope you aren’t holding your breath waiting for an answer.
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Hrm, I shouldn’t be surprised at the stuff edited out I guess. On the foreign policy matters, I think I may have to upgrade my C- I initially gave Sara Palin and make it a B+ if not a A- now. I don’t think Gibson personally edited the interview but his network is looking a D grade if not a F right now.
Yakko77 on September 13, 2008 at 11:55 AM
The point is that until the Bloggers lay off, this will never be on MSM. Maybe you would be better served with sticking with the NFL because you have made it perfectly clear you understand nothing about biased reporting and the effort needed to fight it. But then again, you probably don’t even see it.
Wade on September 13, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Cervix,
I honestly don’t blame you for your ignorance, and don’t conflate it to stupidity. You exist in an environment where 99% of all media that you have ever been exposed to agree with your worldview. That you are unable to see outside of your bubble is not terribly surprising, but rather it is a testament to the substantial vision of those others here who have escaped the network/Hollywood/newspaper web of lies.
So, rather than further denigrate your ignorance, let us celebrate these hardy spirits who have encountered and conquered an informational wall that looks like this:
ABC
NBC
CBS
WGN
CNN
MSNBC
CNBC
PBS
BET
Univision
NY Times
Wash Post
LA Times
Tribune -
ad nauseum
Sony
Google
Apple
The entire network tv programming industry
The entire education system
The government of every major city in America
The entire State Department
The entire labor union network
Every major Protestant religious denomination (leadership)
I’m bored, but I probably only have half of it. If you have a brain, you’ll get the picture.
Jaibones on September 13, 2008 at 12:00 PM
I somehow didn’t list – the entire Hollywood motion picture industry.
Jaibones on September 13, 2008 at 12:00 PM
It is hard to answer questions on untruths. It is equally hard to answer question when asked and answered the host continues to badger until they get the answer they want to hear. Gibson’s interview was disgraceful and has nothing to do with tough questions, but that is obvious that is something you will never see because you can not deal with facts.
Wade on September 13, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I work at ABC News, but thankfully had nothing to do with this.
This is an embarrassment on so many levels. From a technical and craft aspect I am astounded that it went on the air in that condition. I do not know any video editor who would stand for that. As for the way the content was handled, sadly I am only slightly surprised but didn’t expect them to be so blatant about about how they hacked the interview up. Just from sheer vanity I honestly did not think that Charlie would allow himself to come off so badly.
As a fly on the wall I can say that the meme circulating is “McCain’s strategy is to blame the media” and how that is a dastardly move to win the election. Some people there actually believe that Obama will clean McCain’s clock in the debates. I happen to believe the opposite.
They honestly believe that they are not biased. I imagine Bernie Goldberg must have a lot to say about that interview.
muggedbyreality on September 13, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Telegraph.co.uk
By Tim Shipman in Wasilla, Alaska
Last Updated: 12:30PM BST 13 Sep 2008
“Comments by the governor of Alaska”…
Lower case title, thereafter replaced by Mrs. accompanied all references to John McCain as Mr., though Cheney and Gates were appropriated their titles in reference.
sfz fear of neocons by impotent British Marxists unable to direct or defend their own business and obsess over ours.
maverick muse on September 13, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Amazingly blatant hatchet job, from the edits to the photo of the dead moose. “And she kills animals too!”
I hate the media beyond words. They have not been this bad since the Civil War. They won’t be satisfied until someone is killed.
PattyJ on September 13, 2008 at 12:05 PM
That doesn’t even make any sense. The Messiah is not to be questioned; The Messiah is to be praised.
As for Sarah Palin – she did her job quite well. We all forget that even Ronald Reagan didn’t do well in hatchet job interviews; no one ever has; it’s not possible. Under the circumstances, Governor Palin performed as well as anyone possibly could have.
But the question remains: why did those circumstances exist in the first place. Right now it LOOKS like the campaign made a strategic error in giving ABC 2 days worth of tape, and allowing them to splice it any way they see fit. On its face, it seems foolish to trust your enemy that far – any attorney would be disbarred for putting his client in that position.
But it’s still too early to know that for certain. This wouldn’t be the first time Karl Rove gave the liberal media just enough rope to hang themselves.
logis on September 13, 2008 at 12:08 PM
You are right. It is great to see she is more qualified to be VP than Barry Huseein to be President. Great to see she is more qualified than Biden, Edwards and a whole list of people who have NEVER dealt with foreign policy but rather have been front-row seat observers of foreign policy and not responsible for policy (Joe-Plugs) .
Wade on September 13, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Interesting part of this whole thing is that McCain had alrady put the media on notice…
And then they did this. This just PROOVES the media bias. It gives him even more ammunition.
Its like saying you can’t be guilty of robbing a bank, because you were robbing the liquor store then… and have he tape to proove it!
Romeo13 on September 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
There is no double standard. There is no standard at all. Gibson is no journalist. ABC and Gibson are DNC mouthpieces. Simple as that.
spmat on September 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Correction: you USED to work at ABC news. Welcome to the The National Enquirer.
After the year-long Edwards coverage fiasco, that line got pretty blurry in a lot of people’s minds. Within a couple of weeks it will be gone completely.
logis on September 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Anyone that doesn’t think Gibson is in the tank for the liberal is just as dumb as someone who thinks Hannity is not in the tank for the conservative.
The difference is, the reasons for each’s support of their candidate.
tx2654 on September 13, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Well Drywall- when can we expect the Libtard Media to throw the toughie questions towards the stuttering stumbling empty suit of platitudes, known as Barrack The Magic Negro?
FiveWays on September 13, 2008 at 12:14 PM
What really chafes me is for two weeks now, we’ve been hearing about how Sarah has not real standing until she talks to the exhaulted PRESS rather than just the riff-raff. She must have a sit-down with the great ones at nbc, abc, cbs, etc.
So she does. What do they do? Chop, chop, snip, snip. And then show us what is left.
I was shocked at how many commercials were shown during the interview. It would be informative to find out what percentage of the time alloted to the interview was taken up by commercials.
“Hmmm we’ve got this candidates opinion on NATO alliances, but on the other had, I’ve got this erectile disfunction spot I can run. Wow. This is a tuffie.”
kurtzz3 on September 13, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Here’s the difference: Hannity admits his bias and makes not claim to be an objective journalist. Gibson – not so much.
ManlyRash on September 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM
That you refuse to acknowledge that Palin was forced to perform at all when her leftist Democrat peers were fluffed and softballed shows that you don’t give the first dry damn about the truth, fairness, justice or integrity.
You, sir, are a party hack.
spmat on September 13, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I am not surprised by editing and the M.O. of the MSM, but I never get used to it. I am an optimist and try to find the best in everybody and everything, but there is no “best” in anything from that interview in regards to Gibson and ABC…
Static21 on September 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Not quite. One is a journalist the other a commentator and their responsibilities to the public are very different.
Wade on September 13, 2008 at 12:18 PM
muggedbyreality on September 13, 2008 at 12:03 PM
So what can one do to bring this to the light of day?
Write to ABC’s advertisers? Change the channel?
They have really crossed the line on this one.
tru2tx on September 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM
This disconnect with reality is nothing short of frightening.
It borders on the mass self-hypnosis of the German people during the 1930’s. This cult-of-personality is a strong potion indeed.
FiveWays on September 13, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Comment of the day here.
So in your opinion after reading the unedited version, are edits like those common place? By that, I mean, splicing in mid sentence. I understand the need to edit for length and it may have been a rush job, but then again if it was a rush job why would it be chopped so much. It looks suspiciously like a hatchet job.
And if your colleagues think Obama will clean McCain’s clock in the debates, show them the YouTube videos of the Saddleback forum.
CanadianGuy on September 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM
We still need another game changer. The Palin pick plus the Barry Bus weaving down the highway has only leveled the field. McCain needs another home run or he is going to lose in a squeeker. NH, CO, NM hold the keys to the kingdom right now.
Limerick on September 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Really Drywall?
The fact that you Obama-lackey’s actually believe that Barry has any experience to be POTUS, and that he really represents “Change”, when his track record is to the contrary- shows just how retarded and out of touch with reality your Party is.
Cherish the next few weeks Drywall- it will be your Party’s last………
FiveWays on September 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I pointed out yesterday in another threat that when I watched Nightline Thursday night, I saw the uncut inverview. I’m certain that ABC’s claim will be that they had to cut parts in order to fit into their “World News Tonight” half-hour, but it’s WHAT THEY CUT that clearly has her coming off looking bad.
I remember thinking that when I watched Nightline, “Hey, she did better than I thought she did.” Of course she did. They had cut the best parts!
RMCS_USN on September 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Actually, maverick muse, the tragedy is that the Telegraph used to be Britain’s main conservative newspaper. And a damn good one it was, too.
S. Weasel on September 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
I might be inclined to give ABC some benefit of the doubt with respect to the edits. After all, if I were given the task of fitting some of the exchanges int a 10-second sound bite suitable for the evening news, I would find it hard to do so w/out leaving out important points of emphasis.
HOWEVER
That does not excuse inaccurate reporting in the headlines and feature stories. Those are not subject to the same space limitations. So when ABC News publishes a headline to the effect that Palin says there will be war with Russia and that headline is based not her full commentary but rather on the edited version of her commentary THAT ABC NEWS EDITED THEMSELVES well, they just need a good swift kick in the ass. That’s all.
PackerBronco on September 13, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »