Could they possibly be willing to sacrifice their credibility completely for ideology?The “they” in this case is big media outlets like CBS, ABC, NBC, the NY Times, the Washington Post, etc. There was an “anonymous” email sent to Glenn Reynolds……

I’m starting to see this argument by the liberal media about Palin actually seeking approx. $450 million in earmarks for Alaska, and attempting to slam her for doing so because she’s criticizing Obama for his nearly $1 billion in earmarks.

This argument forgets one key point: The differences in the job of a GOVERNOR versus that of a State’s SENATOR or CONGRESSPERSON.

It is an entirely expected and proper part of ANY governor’s JOB to ATTRACT AS MUCH INVESTMENT AS POSSIBLE to his or her state, in order to benefit that state, be it private investment capital or federally funded capital. Of course, it’s also the governor’s job to hold down the tax burden or other social burdens to his/her state constituents during the process.

However, for a LEGISLATOR…it is an expected and proper part of the job to carefully study these attempts to attract investment by the states, deem whether they are worthy of federal funding and thus inclusion in an earmark, or whether it’s either a fairly low priority when evaluated against competing projects/initiatives, or even a waste of their state taxpayers’ tax money.

Obama was barely there in the Illinois state legislature, and also barely there for the U.S. Senate…notice the multiple “present” votes not taking a stand on many bills (indicating likely lack of time put into studying the issues to sufficient depth to take that stand, or the cowardice to be held accountable for having taken one at all) in both legislatures in which he served.

So…the media is attempting to slam Palin for ACTUALLY DOING the job she was elected to, while leaving Obama alone for NEGLIGENCE in doing his?

HYPOCRISY. SHEER, TOTAL, UTTER LIBERAL MEDIA HYPOCRISY.

bayam on September 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM

I do not think anyone is complaining about a difficult interview..

the biggest foul I see is the LOUSY edit job.. parsing her answers, taking one answer to a question and pairing it up with another another question to be out of context..

I would like to see Obama handle a tough interview like she had.. same conditions.. 2 days, nothing held back…

Gerard has the whole story of how The Atlantic got screwed by freelance photographer Jill Greenberg during and after her McCain cover shoot. I’m sticking it out for right now with The Atlantic; I do not believe the editors and……

If this has been the 100th interview granted by Palin to the press, instead of the first, there’s no doubt that the questions would have been different. Does Palin always have to be cast in the light of some kind of great victim?

Perhaps more scrutiny should be given to her record and why she continues to claim opposition to the bridge to nowhere when in reality she supported it until the Congress started to attack it.

Any news organization caught in this kind of shameful lying should have their White House press passes revoked and given to the next reporters in line. Continue this until we have purged the press room of liars.

Commentary should not be penalized, but dishonest reports and edits which change meaning should not be tolerated in pieces presented as “news”. Liars contribute nothing whatsoever to the national discussion, and are not helping the press as an institution either.

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.

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.