Charlie Gibson Goes From Most Respected Anchor to Foolish Disgrace

Canada Free Press ^ | 09/14/08 | Yomin Postelnik

[Yomin Postelnik]

Electoral victories of Democrats is a matter the media elites take immensely personal. Bill Clinton’s victory in ’92 was seen as their victory, the ascension to power of all children of the 60s (although Clinton is more conservative than they are, we must bear in mind that perception always trumps reality when it comes to the whimsical allegiances of superficial media elites) . Their fierce allegiance has now transferred to their replacement hero, Obama, who is far more radical than Clinton ever was and who may be even more radical than the media elites are themselves.

So it’s understandable that they’re personally upset. What’s not excusable is that they’ve, in effect, walked off the job. They’re refusing to report and have instead assumed the role of attack dogs for their campaign of choice. Yes, they’ve favored, lied and manipulated the news for years, many times in very inexcusable ways. But they never campaigned as overtly for or against a campaign as they are now. They’ve never been so full of bile as they are today. They’ve never acted as outrageously and been so openly spiteful as they are with their anti-Palin, pro-Obama crusade. And in the process, they’ve thrown their integrity straight out the window.

Joining their ranks is the once respected Charlie Gibson. He’s done similar things before and his biases are very much a reality. But the sad thing is not that he was never as overtly biased as he is now, as is the case with the rest of the media. The truly sad part is that the level of nastiness and hypocrisy displayed by him is uncharacteristic and is a blemish on an otherwise fairly decent career (as decent as one can expect from one in today’s mass media).

[nobama08]

Calling old Charlie out - great job.

[Paladin2]

Charlie, you ignorant slut.

[maggief]

Stand up, Chuck!

[Laverne]

The foreign press gets it and reports it; the US press rally round their brethren and protect them.

Gibson is in the mud up to his neck; he destroyed his reputation with this interview and his editing of it to push the Obama agenda. Shame on Charlie.

Had he an ounce of integrity he would apologize and ABC would air the full interview without any edits.

Seems like the entire MSM is taking their cues from Keith Olberman. Propaganda runs rampant thoughout the MSM and Charlie proved himself to be just another propagandist.

[LiveFreeOrDie2001]

ALL:

Go to ABC’s site and sound off. I hit the 500 character max.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[ronnie raygun]

Hey Charlie! "Dan Rather is on the other line, wants to know if you would like to have a cup of joe at the diner downstairs and commiserate”

[Need4Truth]

“Media elites need to start doing their jobs, or at least start pretending to do so.”

or just go join the dinosaurs.

[Yomin Postelnik]

Thanks.

From the column (to show how ridiculous he is):

Even ABC’s “Fact Checker” got in on the game, playing fast and loose with the “facts.” When Gov. Palin said that “many vice presidents throughout history” would answer “no” the question of whether they had met with foreign leaders. “Fact” Checker Jake Tapper had a problem with that and deemed it “false.” He cited George H. W. Bush, Mondale, Al Gore and Dan Quayle as examples of vice presidents with great foreign policy experience (a stretch, to say the least, in many of the above cases). Of course, Palin’s statement was true and applies categorically to over 80% of past vice presidents.

But it gets even more ridiculous. Gov. Palin has more foreign policy experience to become Vice President than then Gov. Bill Clinton had when he became President. The same can be said of many recent presidents, with the only exception since Nixon being George H. W. Bush. Before that, with the exception of Eisenhower one needs to go back to James Buchanan to find a President with major foreign policy experience prior to assuming office (before him we’re looking at Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams, but you get the point).

[snoringbear]

“Charlie, you ignorant slut”

Yeah, for sure. He is the one that came across as a condescending, arrogant, elitist fool. His interview was very confrontational and it was obvious to anyone who had one modicum of objectivity that he was out to trip her up with a gotcha question. I was waiting for him to ask her who the president of Uzbekistan is (Islom Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov - yes, I Googled it) but maybe that would have been too obvious even to those who live in Rio Linda...

[sionnsar]

Had he an ounce of integrity he would apologize

Won't happen.

[Mercat]

I did the same and I used the word “shame” three or four times.

[Mediocrates]

Or, send an email. Long, if you like, or short and to the point (like mine).

charles.gibson@abcnews.com

[John W]

About the editing. And, I only watched the first night on the 6:30 news as I can’t afford a new TV right now. Besides being edited in an attempt to make Sarah look bad, it technically wasn’t worthy of typical network television work.

[Cheryllynn]

“Oh Chuck” you disappointed me :( but I wasn’t surprised.

[shineon]

I also sent him a quick shame on you.

[steelyourfaith]

If you add up all the posts I directed to Charlie on the ABC site I would have exceeded the 500 per max. I kept thinking of additional things I wanted to say.

It's a great opportunity to vent against the left wing media.

[itsthejourney]

His interview was very confrontational and it was obvious to anyone who had one modicum of objectivity that he was out to trip her up with a gotcha question.

Which is why I refused to watch it.

[silverleaf]

Love the header