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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
The Annenberg files have been opened and there are people pouring over them…..wait for it…….steady……
FiveWays on September 13, 2008 at 12:26 PM
I follow the news quite closely, and until this week had considered Gibson to be one of the ore impartial anchors/interviewers. The interview, and ABC’s shameful edit of it, were revealing to me, as I suspect they were to a lot of other people.
BadgerHawk on September 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM
This is one of the more telling examples of how the media is trying to make the U.S. look like rogue war mongers. Palin specifically says “and we have to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure” but it is deleted from the interview. I am just SO angry right now that I can’t see straight.
Does anyone have an address for ABC where I can write? I’ve had enough!
Mr_Magoo on September 13, 2008 at 12:28 PM
If I had to watch the evening news I always picked Gibson because I thought he was the most honest…no more… the mask has come off and I hate what is really there…
How long has the MSM been decieving and manipulating real America and we weren’t aware of it? The last year especially the last two weeks have been a real eye opener…
CCRWM on September 13, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Well, at least the whole interview was played but if that’s the case then that’s how it’s should’ve been played and they should’ve just skipped on the edited to hell bits in eh half hour news segment.
Yakko77 on September 13, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Does everyone here really have such selective memory!? My God….
He has been asked that question before by Stephanopoulos during the debates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlnoXZWRjgE
Did it ever occur to you that if the Gibson interview from July was softer than this (I disagree and think people are just making excuses for her poor performance.) might be because of all the accusations of bias against him from April?
The grilling from that debate was far far harsher than anything Palin’s ever confronted and probably ever will. How soon people
Typhonsentra on September 13, 2008 at 12:35 PM
THis interview gave Sarah a chance to look strong and presidential. It made Charlie look like a dork.
Mojave Mark on September 13, 2008 at 12:36 PM
It’s the one thing that I noticed when watching the 20/20 interview is that a lot of Gov. Palin’s answers seemed cut short. Now it appears that they’ve been edited for a sinister purpose. Comparing Palin’s questions against the questions for Obama it definitely shows a liberal media bias.
eigafan on September 13, 2008 at 12:37 PM
“You can’t blink, Charlie…”
Now I’m impressed. I thought she squeaked by without making any mistakes before (that was the best that ABC could do at making her look bad). When I see the cuts, I’m just blown away.
SHE DOESN’T BLINK…..CHARLIE!
Moxie on September 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM
The Gibson interview almost made me wish that I still watched the MSM, just so I could boycott it now. But I don’t and therefore can’t. Anybody know who ABC’s major sponsors are?
BitterClinger on September 13, 2008 at 12:57 PM
It sure seems like they tried their hardest to make her look bad.
abinitioadinfinitum on September 13, 2008 at 1:05 PM
I told my husband that most last night that most of the regular viewers of ABC probably have, or had no intention to vote Republican, but that the editing was so bad even the mind numbed robots would have to see this interview was not normal. He had missed the Thursday interview, and was amazed at the severe and obvious editing Friday.
I think the RNC should run the full interview on the internet, or take out some ads with her entire answers juxtaposed with questions and answers from Obama, or most specifically with Biden since he is the VP candidate. Biden wanted to divide Iraq into 3 parts, give Iran millions of dollars after 9-11 to placate them, and I am sure there is even more foreign affair gaffes from Biden that could be placed in an ad in comparison to Governor Palin.
Lastly, on the 9-11 snoozefest the other night Obama said mayors “trimmed trees, see that the garbage is picked up and fill in pot holes”. Last night during the hurricane Ike coverage MAYORS were risking their lives to stay behind and tend to their communities, seeing to the rescuing of their constituents, communicating with federal officials regarding needs, evacuations, food and water supplies, gas leaks, fires, and chemical plants. It is an outrage to belittle the jobs of these Mayors, and Mayors all over this nation. Many times they are the first people on the scene in situation like these and they are the ones that stay behind to see to those that do not evacuate, and they do this not for votes, but because of an oath they took. I noticed during the coverage of Ike that no COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS were interviewed, or were staying behind to assist their neighbors. So, shove it DNC and Obama on trashing our Mayors in this country!
freeus on September 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM
I read the edited versions and was surprised that there was so much. I realize that for the interest of time it might be necessary to edit out some redundant remarks, but this was such a blatant attempt to control the message that it can not be missed.
Don’t these guys know that people can get this kind of information now?
Terrye on September 13, 2008 at 1:12 PM
The update about the interview and the parts that were left out should be on an entirely new post. Don’t let it go barely noticed on this one. Let it be a post all of it’s own and then it can also be buzzed up all it’s own.
DethMetalCookieMonst on September 13, 2008 at 1:14 PM
After seeing the softball questions thrown at Obama vs. the hardball questions thrown at Palin with her thoughtful responses; it looks like the bottom of the GOP ticket beats the top of the Democrat ticket. No wonder Obama is sliding in the polls. I can’t wait to see how she handles the VP debate. I wish we could also get the tops of the tickets to battle the opposing VPs in debates. It would be fun watching McCain vs. Biden and Obama vs. Palin.
Granny T on September 13, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Maybe Gibson did ask Barry some of the tough questions, but he bumbled so badly this was all ABC could air.
RW_theoriginal on September 13, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I think the ABC site has crashed…
CCRWM on September 13, 2008 at 1:34 PM
One diffence: Facts. Obama just says, over and over again, “They’re lying about me!” But he never explains why that might be. Whereas this is specifically pointing out why Gibson’s wrong. Discerning facts from spin is not “whining.”
Jim Treacher on September 13, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Holy crap… well that takes all the useful information, meat, and value out of her responses. What the hell, are they even trying to pretend like they might be unbiased?
Nope, trying to make Palin look bad, in any way possible… I can’t see another way to read that transcript and see what they cut.
gekkobear on September 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM
ABC News does have a contact page where you can send comments/complaints, etc. Not that they actually look at them, but they need to hear from us. Perhaps a few million emails to them complaining about Gibson’s obvious bias, edits and smears might make them wake up and smell the coffee. But then again, we’re talking about the media. Here’s the link to that page: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Charles%20Gibson
jdawg on September 13, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Meh…the files have been purged of any incriminating evidence. If confronted with redactions and missing pages or whole volumes, the library will shrug its shoulders and say “Gee, we don’t know how that happened.”
ManlyRash on September 13, 2008 at 1:41 PM
I saw the debate and Obama wasn’t treated agressively or condescendingly… One question in that debate doesn’t compare with the misleading and dishonest editing of the Palin interview… Does it occur to you that many of us are offended that Gibson, to get in the good graces of the MSM and elite again, maybe because he asked the debate question was so dishonest in this interview? We don’t like being manipulated, lied to or decieved!
CCRWM on September 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM
If you want to contact ABC here is the link:
Gibson and ABC
Let em know what you think.
Terrye on September 13, 2008 at 1:44 PM
maybe Sandy Burglar got there first.
kareyk on September 13, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Ah Ed, where’s the pessimism? Allah has you beat on pessimism.
carbon_footprint on September 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Typho:
Oh please, Obama wants to be President of the United States, someone asked him some hard questions at a debate…and that has to be balanced out by doing a hatchet job on the Republican VP candidate? What nonsense.
Terrye on September 13, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Is anyone else having trouble getting onto any of the three ABC links that have been provided here? I can’t get on any of them…
CCRWM on September 13, 2008 at 1:54 PM
The thing that the Annenberg files reveal is already known; it’s hidden in the wide-open. It is the demonstrable fact of how closely Obama worked with Ayers, and how long they have worked together.
It sounds like Kurtz is looking for some magic bullet, like a connection to how Ayers went about hiring Obama as chairman of the program, and that’s great. But, as someone else mentioned, I have no doubt that this information has been carefully scrubbed from those files. It might be there, but hard to find.
The real news is just that Obama has (obviously) had a close relationship and philosophical kinship to a domestic terrorist and radical leftist for several years. But that will only be worth knowing if the media is willing to turn the spotlight on Ayers and discuss the 1960s again. Not likely.
Jaibones on September 13, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Try going here: http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843 then click the link for World News with Charlie Gibson. That should take you to the link posted above. Hopefully they’re getting so many complaint emails that thier web/email servers are going down. That would be great!
jdawg on September 13, 2008 at 2:03 PM
CCRWM:
I just submitted comment. if the link is not working go to abcnews.com and at that bottom of the page is a place to go for comments.
Terrye on September 13, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Here’s an oxymoron for you: journalistic ethics
exdeadhead on September 13, 2008 at 2:19 PM
This is one of the main reasons why I stopped trusting ABC as a place to get my news. ABC is slowly starting to become the All Barack Channel anyway.
pilamaye on September 13, 2008 at 2:20 PM
There is an easy way to stop this nonsense. Once McCain and Palin take office, cut off the networks that engaged in this sort of crap. No interviews to ABC news, period. Remove them from the White House press pool, Air Force One, etc, until they get an on-air apology. Once these networks start losing access, and interview privileges, etc, maybe they will start to come around. They don’t have to be favorable, but they do have to be balanced.
Kevin71 on September 13, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Nor have they asked him how a community Organizer can take campaign cash, hush money and bribes from a slumlord and be friends with him for 17 years! Even after that Slumlord DID NOT heat the homes of the people that we in Obama’s District!
Obama Sold OUT the people that he was supposed to be representing!
Instead of Blowing the Whistle on the Corruption he was on the take and dime of a corrupt slumlord that is now a convicted felon.
Chakra Hammer on September 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I got thru on Terrye’s link, this is what I wrote:
Please show the entire Palin interview, not the chopped up hatchet job that was shown this week. What a disgrace ABC has become. Why was Gibson so soft on Obama and tried to trip Palin up????
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]
reshas1 on September 13, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Found in a dumpster in Juneau:
Gibson’s Questions for Obama (first draft)
- What is your name?
- What is your quest?
- What is your favorite color?
Gibson’s Questions for Palin (first draft)
- What is your name?
- What is the capital of Assyria?
- What is the airspeed velocity of an unladened swallow?
Scott Free on September 13, 2008 at 2:39 PM
We’ve got to do something about this. It cannot stand.
capitalist piglet on September 13, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Yikes. They cut out:
but left in what immediately followed it:
Makes her sound more airheadish. As if seeing is believing.
Paul-Cincy on September 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Here’s a redundant statement : Charlie is a arrogant journalist.
Fuquay Steve on September 13, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Well, I think she got the worst one out of the way. I’d like to see her do a lot of interviews now. I can’t imagine anyone being more unfair than ABC and Gibson have been, at this point.
An interview with Chris Wallace or Brit Hume would be good.
capitalist piglet on September 13, 2008 at 3:04 PM
If you deconstruct her answer to the “Bush Doctrine” question, her responses were sterling. Real-time, baiting, gotcha situation, she negotiated it beautifully.
One slam on Palin is she may repeat the same words and phrases in stating what she believes. Composing wonderful text and script is Ed’s and AllahPundit’s and MM’s realm. There’s a place for that. Sarah Palin conveys her true beliefs in a clear, honest, and effective way. If she repeats words or phrases, so what. She’s saying what she thinks; she doesn’t mean to create a work of art.
Paul-Cincy on September 13, 2008 at 3:09 PM
None of those foreign policy questions should have been unexpected. He’s asking for basic knowledge about U.S. foreign policy. I can understand if Palin doesn’t have clearly articulated views yet, but she needs to catch up in a hurry.
RightOFLeft on September 13, 2008 at 3:32 PM
When Hannity interviews Palin he should repeat – word for word – the questions Gibson asked Obama. When the libs cry “softball!”, reveal the prank and throw it back in their face!
Scott Free on September 13, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Holy shit!’
They left ALL that out?
ABC is so f’in partisan.
After reading through it, it is obvious they edited it to try to show Palin as some sort of warmonger.
My respect for her is now higher.
This chick will do just fine.
Sapwolf on September 13, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Hey there – if you haven’t read the full transcript – please take a moment to do so.
This is much more than media bias – this is media malpractice.
ABC is clearly not a news organization – they’ve broken nearly every rule of journalism here.
Not only should they never be counted on again for any kind of information dissemination, the McCain campaign should full out boycott them with a full public explanation.
The media is digging a grave for itself.
Dorvillian on September 13, 2008 at 3:38 PM
It’s like I said in the first interview thread:
Palin is playing against a stacked deck with marked cards. Both her and Gibson will look worse than they should because ultimately, no matter how fair Gibson is, his editors will do everything – everything – to try and bring Sarah down.
BKennedy on September 13, 2008 at 3:58 PM
They won’t be able to edit live debates.
That’s when the curtain is pulled back and all is revealed.
TheCulturalist on September 13, 2008 at 4:00 PM
My advice is for everyone reading this thread to leave a complaint EVERY DAY on that Scumbag Network’s site.
They can’t change who and what they are, but at least they can be reminded of it.
They’re mostly FemGirls and GirlyMen, and they are very, very sensitive.
Janos Hunyadi on September 13, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Again, put the update in a seperate post of it’s own. Let it stick out! The public must know about the hatchet job with Pain’s responses! This must be exposed just like the fake memo thing in ‘04!!!
DethMetalCookieMonst on September 13, 2008 at 4:09 PM
iconoclast on September 13, 2008 at 4:37 PM
COMPLAIN to ABC! Here’s what I just submitted:
Link to contact ABC
Link to contact ABC News
Comment as much as you can to them. The interview was horrible and in my opinion criminal.
cannonball on September 13, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Just a reminder folks; Disney Inc. owns ABC…..
Created in 1943 from the former NBC Blue radio network, ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company and is part of Disney-ABC Television Group. …
Enough is enough.
Keemo on September 13, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The worst part is that even though we know what was said, the vast majority of Americans will not find out about ABC’s editing so their hatchet job was successful. Anyone that was borderline and got an answer that made them think negatively about Palin was the target and ABC didn’t miss. Meanwhile, John McCain can’t talk to The View cast because they are too uninformed about the US Constitution to the way our system works to keep from sounding like idiots (and partisan).
Sigh, I can only hope that not many people watched Gibson’s interview. If McCain’s people had been smart they would have made ABC sign a deal that allowed McCain’s people a final say in what could *not* be edited out to retain the context of the questions and answers.
Geministorm on September 13, 2008 at 5:02 PM
You all need to get over this. Barack didn’t need to know anything about foreign policy because he is going to give away the store! He is taking the Rodney King attitude towards diplomacy. “Can’t we all just get along?” while everything burns around him. Everyone will be our friends and we won’t need any borders.
Sarah, on the other hand, supports dictating to our enemies what we require of them so they can continue to exist.
I also have to admit in all seriousness, and I am embarrassed to admit, that even I had signed up to the “Bush Doctrine” of preemption – until I heard Mark Levin discussing it and losing his mind over it. Levin is right, it isn’t preemption. It’s self protection. You don’t have to get hit in the head with a hammer before you do something to stop it from happening. I think we all need to start identifying the real issue here.
Thanks Mark.
JeffinOrlando on September 13, 2008 at 5:15 PM
Someone should make a good Youtube spoof.
ClintACK on September 13, 2008 at 5:25 PM
Geministorm:
Palin held her own, editing and all. There is no reason to hope that the American people did not see that interview.
Terrye on September 13, 2008 at 5:32 PM
*****************************************
Boycott ABC advertisers. Pass it on.
*****************************************
ignatzk on September 13, 2008 at 5:43 PM
notice how they didn’t talk much at all about her key issue, Energy Indpendence! and her background on taking on the Oil Companies, the crony capitalism, etc.
a complete sham of an interview
jp on September 13, 2008 at 6:14 PM
What possible good is boycotting ABC’s advertisers going to do? ABC’s advertisers are going to become of your wimpy little boycott and pressure the ABC News division to do… what? Be more conservative? Be more balanced? It’s not going to happen. The thing to do is to not watch them, ever. Their ratings are already tanking, they will lose advertisers that way, they will lose revenue, then they will begin firing staff, their news coverage will drop off, they won’t be a voice at all in the media in a few years, all the alphabet networks will drop nightly news and we’ll be through with them. Then the dead tree media will soon follow. Good riddance. MSNBC’s business model is built on a shaky foundation too: no one has ever made money catering to liberals, on radio, on tv. They are getting better ratings than they were, but they are still 3rd everywhere. And they have no room for growth, because this is as good as it gets for them. Once the election is over, all the networks take a nosedive in ratings. CNN and Fox and weather the storm, they will still get 3-10x what MSNBC is getting NOW, in it’s heyday. Look for MSNBC to start cutting back after the election. First to go, Wretched Madcow. She will be useless after the election and sullen libs stop watching, angry because bathtub boy and his ilk lied when they told the libs Obama was going to win.
docweasel on September 13, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Since Vietnam…minimum. No, go before that. One could say the NY Times and their claptrap and what they fed to the State Department about Fidel having such a fighting force, and what kind of leader he would be. These lies were what allowed Fidel to take over Cuba in 1959 essentially without firing a shot.
To get a good perspective on this, read Grayston Lynch’s book, Decision for Disaster: Betrayal at the Bay of Pigs
it is a real eye-opener.
An excerpt:
But then, you could go back even further to the days of Stalin, and the lies the NY Times told supporting Russia, and how there were no starving people over there.
That last, is an issue the Slimes won a Pulitzer for…a Pulitzer they refuse to give back.
91Veteran on September 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM
What amazed me about Gibson’s tone was how incredibly CONDESCENDING he was to Palin.
Just totally contemptuous.
Oh how totally objective Gibson’s journalism is.
(Not.)
Shirotayama on September 13, 2008 at 7:39 PM
I think Charlie was just angry he missed Bob Scheiffers hootenannie (sp?) he had on Friday. Katie was there – all the elites but not poor Charlie.
Fuquay Steve on September 13, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I just used one of the links provided above to send ABC News a short little note of my opinion on their obvious flaming bias, and I promised to contact their advertisers (that appeared during the interview) to tell them I’ll not be buying products from them!
electric-rascal on September 13, 2008 at 7:50 PM
It is a double standard, but hey, one was asked easy questions because he asked according to their qualifications. You open the resume, and ask questions according to what the person in from of the interviewer can handle. Obama was asked easy questions because Gibson needed to get answer that Obama could answer.
Palin was aked tougher questions because she could handle tougher questions.
WoosterOh on September 13, 2008 at 7:51 PM
If I were a company that spent a big chunk of money with ad buys during ABC News shows, and people started contacting ME about what crap ABC News is and that they’ll not be buying MY products… I’d think twice about doing any more advertising on ABC!
electric-rascal on September 13, 2008 at 7:54 PM
How nice it would be that Russia, Iran, North Korea, other thug nations and terrorists would treat Obama with the same standard should he [cough][spit] be elected.
Anybody want to calculate the Vegas odds on that happening?
electric-rascal on September 13, 2008 at 7:58 PM
With 252 comments on this thread, I’m sure it has already been suggested, but I’ll reiterate it anyway:
McCain and Palin should only do live interviews to avoid the imaginative tape editing being done by the networks.
pocomoco on September 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM
She went on the bad guy show first; now she can go on a friendly and let them attack the unfairness of ABC.
PattyJ on September 13, 2008 at 8:04 PM
And they should clearly explain exactly why they’re setting that rule, with before-and-after-edit footage from the Charlie Gibson interview.
The really interesting phase of the campaign will kick in after the debates. That’s when a lot of average, politically indifferent Americans really start paying attention to the candidates. There are an astonishing number of people out there who don’t know anything about Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, or Tony Rezko. Watch what happens when the McCain campaign educates them. If the polls are in total free fall for Obama by the final presidential debate, I think he might just crack on the stage. Stock up on popcorn now…
Doctor Zero on September 13, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Hannity interviews Palin next. I know for a fact he is reading HA. Time to get your game on Sean…
Calm Before the Storm on September 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM
Electric-Rascal: Have you got a list of those advertisers that appeared during interview?
I would VERY much like to:
a) Find out which companies’ products & services to boycott
b) Call them and tell them WHY, as you’re doing
If you’ve got a list, can you post it here?
Shirotayama on September 13, 2008 at 8:59 PM
I don’t suppose that it occured to you guys that the questions asked of a) someone who has been campaigning and making their positions on various issues known for almost two years, and b)someone who has just recently been splashed onto the national scene and whose views are relatively unknown…
…might me different?
ChenZhen on September 13, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Right CHenZhen, because the only things we don’t know about Obama is how he feels about being the super special wonderful marvelous person that he is.
We know everything else, and there are no more tough questions to ask… unless you’re a racist? Are you a racist? Ok then, no tough questions.
gekkobear on September 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Hey, I went to school with Robert Iger, the head of Disney. We graduated 1973 from Ithaca College in upstate NY. I should give him a call and tell him to cut out the crap! I’m sure he remembers me. We passed each other in the hallway once. We were in a dorm panty raid at the time!
Mr_Magoo on September 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM
It’s a big tradition in the TV documentary industry to edit the person’s words to make them into what you want them to be. The edits to Palin’s speech by Gibson’s team resulted in Palin looking like she was stilted — when the full transcript shows otherwise. The leftie blogs hammering on Palin have capitalized on her apparent stiltedness, and I thought there was some truth to the matter; I don’t any more.
My wife had the same thing happen to her on NPR. NPR did a special on youth sports injuries, and talked to my son’s doctor, who is a national authority on juvenile gymnastics injuries. He referred them to my wife and son, who at that time had a stress fracture in his wrist from doing the parallel bars in gymnastics, and was restricted in what he could do. They interviewed my wife and my son for about four hours, including filming him with her and his coach, interviewing her separately, filming his team practice, etc. The segment with my son and wife ran for five minutes, and they turned her into one of those mothers who is trying to force her child be what she could not be at the expense of his health, by doing a heavier version of what Gibson did to Palin. We learned from that — you can make anyone say anything on TV if you interview them long enough and edit the results appropriately.
I hope Palin and McCain have learned something from this — you must go live; they can’t get you that way, especially if you don’t talk during the commericial breaks.
unclesmrgol on September 14, 2008 at 1:23 AM
HA HA AHA HA good idea, I think it would work. We could get her complete answers also!
allrsn on September 14, 2008 at 2:16 AM
ChenZhen,
While I can see your point, there’s just one leeeeeeetle problem with it:
Despite two years of campaigning (instead of prioritizing his time focusing on being the Senator Illinois taxpyers elected him to be), the problem is that a lot of Obama’s “positions” are either (seemingly intentionally) vague or unclear, or have shifted 180 degrees with shifts in the political winds…reminding me VERY much of the Clintons. Example: I was for tax increases before I was against them. I was for talking directly with Ahmadinejad before I was against it.
The first place I saw Obama volunteer to take an actual grilling was the O’Reilly interview, an interview that was expectely very tough…but also noticeably fair. Contrast this with Gibson’s clearly contemptuous, condescending tone as he interviewed Palin. It seemed as if he was trying to the play the role of a old Dad grilling a very young adult daughter whose views and actions he utterly despised. The feeling, the air of superiority he exuded when speaking to her, via the tone he was using…utterly disgusted me.
A set of hard questions to a newbie on the national bigtime political stage, asked toughly but fairly? Absolutely warranted, of course. Do you truly believe the way Gibson handled that interview REALLY fits that bill to a T?
I don’t. Gibson’s interview appalled me.
Shirotayama on September 14, 2008 at 7:29 AM
People need to let their money speak, don’t only contact Charlie Gibson, but contact their sponsors and let THEM know your feelings. Personally, I have cancelled subscriptions to three magazines with affiliations to CNN and BSNBC and have contacted many corporate offices letting them know that my family will no longer purchase their products…like dominoes, when their revenues fall they will pull their advertising, advertising revenues down means less money to “expose” the evil republicans and conservatives. http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=World%20News%20with%20Charles%20Gibson
PatriotPete on September 14, 2008 at 12:03 PM
I just went over to the Newsbusters link and read the edited-vs.-unedited transcript. Fascinating.
And – not to play this up *too* much, but there may be an opening here to drive a wedge between Charlie Gibson against his own network / footage editors.
There is a point in the interview where Gibson actually *agrees* with Sarah Palin, but it was edited out to appear as if he doesn’t.
IMHO that’s the place to squeeze. Challenge Gibson directly, in person, and live, why did *he* chose to do that, exactly?
There are only two answers to that question: either (1) he’s overtly venal and manipulative, or else (2) *he didn’t* make that particular decision.
Either he discredits himself, or else he distances himself from his news division. It would, at the very least, be an interesting test of his character, to see which way he goes.
RD on September 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »