So I’ve read a lot today in the aftermath of the Charlie Gibson/Sean Hannity interviews with Palin about how she was mistreated, and how the media is using a double standard when handling her. This is a bit long, but I guess I’m going to try to refute those charges because I emphatically disagree with the characterization that she was treated unfairly at all.
Here is an excerpt from an article on Hot Air talking about the issue:
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.
The article specifically points out that the questions asked to Barack Obama by Charlie Gibson earlier this year, and John Edwards in 2004 were much less policy oriented. Although I understand how someone could come up with this premise, it’s absurd and misleading.
Here is more from Hot Air:
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
etc, etc, etc…..
Now, the important thing to keep in mind here is who Charlie Gibson was interviewing (Sarah Palin) and Palin’s exposure to the press at that point in time. Less than a month ago only about 145 people outside of Alaska knew who Sarah Palin was. She was a relative unknown to most Americans, and there hasn’t been much to clear that up prior to the Gibson interview.
Furthermore, up until a couple weeks ago the most anyone knew about her insights into foreign policy was Cindy McCain’s declaration that Palin’s foreign policy experience was sufficient because Alaska is so close to Russia. After appearing at the RNC the McCain campaign has gone to great lengths to keep her away from any questioning by the press. As a result, Charlie Gibson in a limited time, had to be diligent in asking difficult questions so that maybe, just maybe, we could actually find out if there was any substance after you get through laughing at all those hilarious lipstick jokes.
When Charlie Gibson interviewed Barack Obama, Obama already gone through a lengthy campaign, where many of these same questions that Sarah Palin (was “unfairly” forced to answer) had been discussed ad nauseum. The race between Obama and Hillary was extremely competitive, and involved just under 3,000 debates. At that point, if you didn’t have any idea about who Barack Obama was and what his answers to those questions would be, well, you probably don’t follow politics closely enough to be making any judgements one way or the other.
The same thing can be said for the John Edwards interview in 2004 cited by the authors. In that interview, juding from the transcript, Edwards appears to have spoken with Gibson for all of 5 minutes. It certainly doesn’t appear to have been a “sit down” interview. More importantly, like Obama, Edwards had just gone through a lengthy campaign where virtually anyone with a television had access to all of his views on foreign policy, the economy, and everything in between.
The onus was on Charlie Gibson to conduct a heavily issue oriented interview. We all are very much aware that Sarah Palin has 5 kids, she sold a jet on e-bay, and that she likes shooting Polar Bears, but what we didn’t know was whether she could answer a tough question or her views on many important issues. Charlie Gibson asked some of those questions, and probably not enough. That was what a responsible reporter should have done, and he did that for the most part. What was irresponsible was Sean Hannity’s love fest on Fox News that followed a week later.
Here are some links to the sources:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/13/did-gibson-have-a-double-standard-for-palin/
http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/09/12/side-by-side-gibson-questions-more/
ronniedigital
tonyf75
Posted by annsnewfriend on September 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The idea that Palin is a complete unknown is a media created stereotype. Conservatives sure seemed to know who she was. Her selection saved McCain’s bacon with a lot of conservatives. That the “mainstream” media was less familiar with her is reflective of their bias. Alaska has been part of the United States for quite a while. And being governor of the state, she wasn’t exactly hiding.
She is no more “obscure” than was Mike Huckabee — or Bill Clinton — for that matter. Who had ever heard of the governor of Arkansas before his presidential ambitions took hold? But Palin was picked for the veep. That the press is making such a big deal over the number two spot puts the lie to Palin’s obscurity. The fact is that she brings real weight to the ticket in the form of a reenergized Republican party.
Posted by matt on September 19, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I have to say I thought Gibson was terrible in the interview. I am not sure that is Gibson’s fault though, he really doesn’t come across as being very sharp.
Comparing him to Hannity is a sign of how bad he was. Hannity is a republican shill, Gibson is supposed to neutral. The fact that Gibson left out part of Palin’s quote (changing the meaning) and then said those were her exact words was really unbelievably poor. People may think it is liberal bias, my thought is it due to Gibson’s laziness and dimness.
I actually wish there were tougher interviews of Obama. It has seemed to me that his message has changed since he won the primary. He has been say he is about change the whole time, but that change seems to have changed (sorry). The change he talks about now seems like change from Republican to Democrat, but that wasn’t what I thought he was talking about when he was battling Hillary. I mean she could bring that kind of change, right?
So maybe ronniedigital could explain Obama’s “change” and throw in some analysis of the big Monday night game coming up as well.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 20, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Response to Comment #1
First, I doubt it’s a media created stereotype because I watched the RNC, and I listen to conservative radio and more than few times people couldn’t even pronounce her name. (most were saying PAL – IN instead of PAY – LIN). She was an unknown, and remains that way to a certain extent. People have largely embraced her based on issues like abortion, and her fiscal conservatism (but that has been proven untrue). That point hasn’t really been discussed though.
The Bill Clinton comparison isn’t really valid. He announced he was running for President and the American people were able to judge him over an extended period of time which involved debates, interviews, and speeches. Palin dropped in as an unknown with 60 days to the election and is finally, just now, doing interviews.
Posted by annsnewfriend on September 21, 2008 at 3:22 pm
reply to comment #3
How is the Clinton comparison not valid? Of course he announced, etc., but there is a difference between the prez and the veep. All I was saying is that when Clinton “announced” a whole lot of people were saying, “huh???”
Meanwhile, please name 5 20th c veeps prior to WWII. No fair consulting google or your worn history book. Hint: their identities might as well be secret.
Palin was well known to conservatives — I’m not saying to “all” conservatives. Her views are ones they like. And they, at least, seem comfortable with her fiscal policy.
If the media and the lefties could not identify the governor of Alaska, well it was not a secret, was it.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 21, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The Clinton comparison is invalid because it doesn’t make sense. My post is merely referring to the supposed “double standard” that is being applied to Sarah Palin by the press subsequent to the Charlie Gibson interview. She was a Governor, and Bill Clinton was as well. That’s the end of the comparison.
The problem, as I see it, is that Bill Clinton announced his candidacy for President and was vetted over an extended period of time. At that point the American people had sufficient time to evaluate his policies, via interviews, debates, and speeches. Palin entered the NATIONAL political scene 60 days before an election. At that point she gave an electrifying speech at the RNC. Following that she was pretty much insulated from interviews by the McCain campaign. Most people, whether you want to admit or not, know relatively little about her. Due to this fact it is imperative that interviewers do not conduct an interview that revolves around her feelings about being the Vice President of the United States.
We all knew John Edwards stance on all issues, and Clinton as well 60 days before the election, hell we knew this information 180 days before the election. Palin remains an unknown, and is one step away from the White House. The problem is people don’t know her views, conservative commentators are still talking as if she never took an earmark. Well, she has, plenty of them. People are enamored with her social policies, and also generalizations (such as that she’s a fiscal conservative) that have largely been proven false by anyone with access to a computer. The fact they keep repeating the lies do not make them true.
I’m not sure why I would need to name ANY 20th c veeps: What is the relevance?
Posted by ronniedigital on September 21, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Comment #2 – Matt, what parts of her quotes did they leave out? Do you mean that they left out certain portions of her responses when ABC did the editing? I haven’t actually read the full transcript, and if they did do that, which have heard was done, it’s quite unfair. Especially if they did it in a way that leaves her looking less informed than she actually is.
I think this is pretty common for Politicians, but like you, I don’t think Obama should be trying so hard to center himself. I don’t think most people are dumb enough to actually believe a sudden shift after winning the nomination is ever legitimate. Are you referring to his stance on drilling for oil specifically?
Did you see the O’Reilly interview with Obama? I actually really enjoyed that interview, and I wish they had given a full hour. It would be nice if the interviews were more policy orientated, but with a civil tone.
Posted by annsnewfriend on September 21, 2008 at 4:43 pm
What is the relevance of being able to name any 20th century veeps. You answer your own question.
If your gripe against McCain is Palin, you’ve got no gripe. If history is any judge ….
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for Obama to be vetted though I’ll grant he has been richly feted. By an media that adores him ….
Posted by Matt on September 21, 2008 at 6:25 pm
In terms of the interview,
Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’
And then Palin responds:
“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”
“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.
However, Palin full quote has a completely different meaning:
“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”
I think that was pretty bush league or hannity league.
Posted by Matt on September 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm
During the primary I was desperately hoping that Obama would beat Hillary. Part because he is likable (while she is not) and also because he talked about a “change” that was different than what Hillary would have offered as president.
Then he picks Biden (who voted for the war and has been in Congress longer than even McCain) and talks about a “change” that seems to mean Republican -> Democrat. I guess I just feel tricked and I wish someone would ask Obama about this because I have not heard anyone do so. Granted I have not watched the O’Reilly interview because O’Reilly irritates me.
So as I have waited for someone to call Obama on this it seems to me that there is a pro Obama media bias. I am not sure it is intentional but I definitely notice it on NPR and CNN. Just my $0.02.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I still can’t quite grasp the relevance of asking me to name any 20th c veeps. If you’re saying Palin is an afterthought, someone that doesn’t really matter, then you have stated a position that I don’t agree with. The fact that some veeps may end up basking in obscurity isn’t really important, what is important is that they are a heartbeat away from being President. Accordingly, I find their qualifications, and understanding of issues a major issue. Perhaps you disagree, which is fine.
Well, the liberal media certainly does seem to be in awe of Obama at times. However, the right goes after him at virtually every opportunity. It works both ways, that much I admit. However, Palin is a fraud, and that remains my main argument.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 21, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Bill Maher asks quite often what is going on with Obama and his movement to the center. He makes the same complaint as you are.
That quote by Palin has been taken out of context in more than a few instances, but I’m never really comfortable with politicians mixing religious talk with national issues, although I think that quote may have been taken from when she was at church. (Right???)
All this “god’s plan” rhetoric I find a bit frightening. Praying for the safety of our troops is fine, praying that they are on a task from god, well, that I could do without. I would rather, when people are talking about a war, they not say “a task from god” in the same sentence.
Posted by debbiedigital on September 21, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I agree that Palin’s quote about praying that the war is a task from God has been taken out of context repeatedly, and that she wasn’t saying that the war IS a task from God (as our current president has said). I am also, though, uncomfortable with the religious rhetoric being introduced alongside foreign policy statements, especially since we are ostensibly at war in Iraq as part of a war on religious extremism, which is TOTALLY bogus, as Saddam was secular and VERY anti-religious fanaticism. He could have been an ally of ours against Al Queda and Iran, but there that went. Not that he was so wonderful–obviously he wasn’t, but strategically this Iraq war has only made things worse, as many agree. I realize I am getting off topic here. The point is, one hopes that we go to war for very clear reasons. When we don’t, like with Iraq and Vietnam, it doesn’t go well. George H. W. Bush made terrific decisions with the first Gulf War: the affront of invading Kuwait was obvious, the objective of making them retreat was achieved, and we left. Many called for further action, which would have been unwarranted, but he did the right thing. He didn’t seem to wonder, “But does God want me to take out the regime, make them a democracy, and throw the whole region into greater turmoil?” I understand praying for safety, and that you’re doing what’s right, but I don’t like putting God behind military action. Haven’t we learned yet how religiously based fights have devastated humanity over the centuries? We are doing the same thing as Islamic extremists if we say “Our Judeo-Christian God wants us to go to war.” It scares me, and it seems senseless and reckless to not have clear objectives or strategies, but say it might be God’s plan anyway. We elect leaders to assess information and make decisions on our behalf for the good of the country–not to convince us we’re fighting “God’s wars.” I understand Palin was in church and I don’t like how her comment has been treated; I’m just saying leave that talk in church, and don’t use it as your rationale to make governmental decisions.
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 8:37 am
You may find it uncomfortable to have people mix religion and politics, but that doesn’t give Gibson any excuse for distorting her quote. And since the topic was double standard in the interview I think this is a case where if Gibson had been interviewing Obama, there would be an outcry. Maybe I am wrong, but I just thought there should be more complaints about Gibson from people who want honest dialogue, not just Republicans.
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 8:43 am
I don’t get HBO so I missed the Bill Maher comments. But I am not sure I feel so great being the same boat as Maher since is apparently kind of a nut (no aspirin, vaccines, or western medicine). Maybe this is a sign I am losing it.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 22, 2008 at 10:58 am
I see your point Matt, but I thought overall Gibson did a decent job. When I say that I just mean he did a better job than I would have expected from Charlie Gibson.
There was quite an outcry when Gibson did the debate between Obama and Hillary, due to the perceived bias Gibson had in favor of Hillary during the interview. Asking Obama all sorts of questions that weren’t really “fair” in many people’s eyes, including my own.
I don’t dispute your point that taking a quote out of context like that was completely unfair though.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 22, 2008 at 11:03 am
First, you need to get HBO. It’s a great channel.
Second, I don’t think Maher is a nut at all. I think his point about medicine is that in this country medicine has become a crutch, while the larger issues, like why is everyone so sick all the time are widely ignored. People rely on headache medicine, and cholesterol drugs, while virtually never addressing what the symptoms are. Perhaps the government subsidizing the use of something like corn syrup, which almost everyone agrees is bad for you, is more to blame for the ills of this country. Maybe we wouldn’t need all this medicine if the gov’t sought to protect the people from these things, or at least not subsidize them. (that’s just a small example of his argument)
As a result, maybe there should be less focus on handing out prescriptions like candy, and a greater emphasis on health.
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 11:56 am
So I imagine that you thought the questions to Obama were not appropriate even though his positions were much less well known than Hillary’s. I think it is the same thinking for Palin supporters.
Everyone tells me Bill Maher is wicked funny. I don’t watch enough TV to justify HBO or at least that is what I tell myself. Maybe he is not crazy, but his comments sound a lot like Tom Cruise.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 22, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I thought the question to Obama were unfair because it seemed to be a concerted effort, in my mind, to favor Clinton in the debate. (It was ex-Clintonite George Stepanopolis (sp???) as co-moderator which seems to add to the possibility of a bias)
Bill Maher is not Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise is a nut, Maher has his moments, but is very well informed and can speak intelligently about any topic they cover on the show. I’ll give anyone credit for that.
Posted by ronniedigital on September 22, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Here is a brief portion of an article from Huffington Post by Greg Mitchell in anticipation of Charlie Gibson butchering the Palin interview:
“In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent “bitter” gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin — while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former ’60s radical — a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton’s husband pardoned two other ’60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and — you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn’t every other responsible journalist on TV?”
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I am sure Bill Maher is great, everyone who I know who watches his show loves him. And I don’t know for sure that polio was eradicated by vaccines, so he may be right about all this stuff. It does seem like there is a prescription drug or vaccine for every problem.
Posted by debbiedigital on September 22, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Yeah, that’s true. Maher also points out how the major problem with the pharmaceutical corporations funding campaigns and constant lobbying is that there is a lot more money in selling drugs that manage symptoms than in promoting health. After all, getting people to eat more fruits and vegetables–actual foods that grow naturally, as opposed to the processed ‘food products’ most Americans eat–will only get more money to farmers, and what corporation wants that? Better to feed us loads of crap and then ‘manage’ our health with endless doctor visits and prescriptions. (Sorry to rant about this–I know I am preaching to the choir, but I find it infuriating. It would be really nice if government had nothing but the people’s best interests as a priority, instead of helping greedy, amoral corporations rake in more money.)
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I agree Deb. Also, you never hear the government say eat less of anything. It is always eat more food with fiber, etc. Never don’t eat this, it is always eat in moderation.
Posted by tonyf75 on September 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Okay, I can’t help but comment on this. Yes, I agree that the government has interests in helping corporations because in some way they benefit financially from it. Favors are done and reciprocated, etc. After all, the government is just a big corporation. But some of the onus HAS to go on the people themselves. People KNOW that McDonalds is bad for them. They do. Ask anyone if it is “health food” and they will look at you like you are an idiot. I am so tired of people who expect the government to spoon feed them everything they should and should not do. If people wanted to eat fruit they would. They want to eat White Castle. It tastes better. Who are you or anyone else to tell them differently? Believe me- they KNOW. They CHOOSE to eat poorly. Is it the government’s job to tell people what to do now? As long as what is IN the food they are eating isn’t being kept secret then I’m okay with people getting fat. It’s their choice. I hate when people want the government to treat them as if they are mentally handicapped (had to use the pc term) and can’t make decisions for themselves. What is “freedom” anyway? Perhaps we all need to define it in order to better understand one another.
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
The first time I read Tony’s comment I thought it was a response to a different thread. I am also now sure that I do not want to leave New Hampshire and its “live free or die” mentality for NYC, which judging from Tony’s comment is an existence of nothing but government oppression.
But in all seriousness I agree with Tony that people have to be left to do what they want and some restrictions. Maybe defining those restrictions is the same as defining freedom. I do think if the FDA is going to give recommendations, which I think Tony would be against regardless of what they say, they include consuming less food. Not just consuming foods high in certain things.
Also, I would be curious to know if Tony thinks there should be laws mandating seat belts be warn and helmets for motorcyclists?
Posted by Matt on September 22, 2008 at 3:46 pm
And by warn I meant worn.
Posted by tonyf75 on September 23, 2008 at 8:53 am
Tony isn’t as anti FDA “suggestion” as Matt thinks. I think that the FDA has done a lot for people in the last 20 years. BIGGER labels on food products, more information on good fats and bad fats, etc. These are all helpful things. Without these progressions McDonalds would still be using animal fat to cook their fries (okay, not the best example).
My main point is that people need to also take responsibility for themselves. I do understand that there is a trust issue between the government and the people- and rightly so. If the FDA approves something we are SUPPOSED to trust that it’s okay to put into our bodies. This isn’t always the case as we’ve seen over and over again. This is bad. This is NOT our fault. We do not need to assume responsibility for this. We can point fingers and feel totally justified in doing so. What I AM talking about is when people go out to Pizza Hut 3 times per week and wonder why they are fat. Then people blame the gov’t for not providing enough nutritional information. Please! People KNOW that Pizza Hut is bad for you the same way that people KNOW that smoking is bad for you. Do they still eat Pizza Hut and smoke cigarettes? They sure do. A lot of the blame HAS to go on the people here. A lot of people have seen Supersize Me. You would think that MOST of those people wouldn’t eat fast food ever again after having seen it. Guess what? They do.
And yes… I know. Bringing up smoking opens up a whole new can of worms. They (the gov’t) know it kills you. They still let tobacco companies sell it. They make $$ off of it. How can you sell poison? We can get into that if you want but it’s its own topic.
Tony thinks that helmet and seatbelt laws are good because when you operate any vehicle you are affecting others on the road or in/on your vehicle as well. Plus, these laws help protect children who can’t always make these decisions for themselves. When Jethro decides he wants to eat pork rinds he is only hurting himself (directly).
I mean, do we want a place where the gov’t decides everything that we do? Everything that we consume? Where there is a list of blacklisted products and whitelisted ones? You get wheat bread and you’ll LIKE IT! It’s HEALTHY! Can’t you SEE that?!?! We are HELPING you! EAT THIS! This is where futuristic movies come from. What about Prohibition? This is a topic that we could talk about forever- and people do.
Tony is done now.