Posted on 10/03/2008 4:20:07 AM PDT by SkyPilot
Gwen Ifill was a true journalist: fair
Critics had feared she would favor Biden because she's written a book that spotlights Obama. Those fears were unjustified.
At least one figure on the stage for Thursday night's vice presidential debate reached a high standard for reason, fairness and class.
Gwen Ifill of PBS demonstrated abundant dignity as referee of the much-anticipated debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
AANNNDD Sarah went right over the heads of the vermin media. Just like Reagan. I hope McClame never sends her back in to that snakepit.
Gov. S. Palin - 1
Ethics at PBS - 0
Gwen was as good as she was ONLY because she had been called out for what she is: SHE IS AN OBAMA SHILL!
Now, all they want to chirp is how "fair" Ifill was and how this debate is "meaningless now."
What a bunch of lies.
Moreover, it was disgraceful (and is disgraceful) how the MSM is in the tank for Obama, and they are getting nervous about it.
P.S. Did anyone else notice that Biden seemed ready to answer Ifill's questions as if he had them in advance?
I agree. I am glad that business came out because it certainly put her on good behavior.
That being said, Sarah owned that debate. Not the other way around.
I didn’t think she was bad either, but I still think writing a book endorsing a candidate, not only disqualifies you from moderating a debate, but also recuses you as a reporter period. But we’re living in a time in which you don’t need money to have a mortgage and you don’t need to be married to have children.
As noted last night, Biden was selected by Ifill to begin
the first statement AND the last statement AND was given
extra rebuttal time.
Also, Biden responded instantly to some complicated questions
suggesting the questions were DNC-PBS tested and run by
Biden ahead of the debate. No wonder the MSM wrote their
headlines to yesterday’s debate three days ago.
Where were the questions on energy, abortion and guns? Ifill is filled with something alright, and it stinks.
I thought that Ifill should have stepped down because she was biased. But then there would be no one to replace her who was not part of the vast left-wing conspiracy. I suspect that she had ample warning to attempt to be unbiased, that is, to minimize her bias. I was not impressed with her.
I wonder if Biden had the questions beforehand because he started to provide a detailed answer even before Ifill completed asking a question.
The democratic thought process seems robotic - whatever the MSM tells them the ‘thought for the day’ is or the ‘decision for the week’ is - they repeat it over and over - on television, radio, in the printed word and in neighborhoods (especially schools).
People are individuals and we are losing responsibility of thought and decision-making because it is just easier for lazy people to blend in with the crowd and think like everyone else says we should. Even worse: we seem to believe it is wrong to be ‘different’ than the majority.
Perhaps in hundreds of years we will not have a thinking brain left - only reactive synapses to orders from above (the media and the government).
I agree that Ifill should have been disqualified, but there were a few times when she looked frustrated while Sarah Palin was making a point that empahased how much of a poser Biden is.
Which is why she told Biden, when shaking his hand after the debate, "you did great!"
Yes I noted that to my wife at the time.
Frightening that Ifill doing what she was supposed to do rates a headline. The publishing of the unflattering pic of Palin only makes them look like the adolescents they are. Good thing the old media is increasingly irrelevant. I’m sure they’ll blame their next round of layoffs on Bush/McCain anyway.
I believe that a lot of the questions were very good ones, but it seemed that they were slanted towards more of what Biden would be stronger on.
This woman has a financial stake in this election, with the direct amounts of hundreds of thousands of dollars in book sales if Baraq wins or next to nothing if he loses.
How they let her do this with such a financial conflict of interest involved is beyond me, she should have been asked to step down for appearance sake if nothing else.
What about her “lame attempt at a joke that no one got anyway”?
Yep. A journalist who put journalism first would have waited until summer of 09 to publish that book.
But journalists put their political agendas first, the same way openly homosexual military personnel and scout leaders put their sexual agenda before their military or scout service by letting it be known that they are homosexual. They want the world to know and fall down and worship not that they are military or scout leader, but “homosexual” military or scout leader.
These journalists want to know that they are ‘liberal’ journalists. They are open about because they believe that being liberal is a qualification of intelligence and objectivity. Yes, that’s how self-deluded they are. They believe that announcing a leftist ideology indicates their objectivity.
PBS and DNC puppeteers remove their unethical financially-connected attack-shill.
Weeks earlier
She was a left wing hack that not only favored biden but slipped him the questions before the debate. She is a communist... look into her “baby cousin”. Palin still kicked both of those donkey a$$e$!
LLS
For the most part, when Biden was making his critical points, the camera was aiming straight at his face.
Not only were they obviously detracting from Governor Palin’s critical points, they wanted to ensure there was far less reusable footage.
The PBS presentation was all about 8-second news clips promoting Biden.
Recusal is to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Failure to do so when there is a clear conflict is simply indecent, and a pretense of impartiality against such an impediment should not be congratulated but the overall failure to recuse oneself should be condemned.
Also, this piece is clearly an opinion piece written in the first person, but it appears to me to be in "National News" section. That lack of journalistic integrity (shared today by the New York Times, which also has blatantly editorialized piece about the debate in its News section) is a large part of why these fishwrappers are failing businesses.
I noticed that.
How did Ifill get selected as moderator anyway?
no wonder the LA Times is going broke. Most of the market that they target can’t come up with the 50 cents it takes to buy their product, the rest of their potential customers don’t know how to read
She didn’t do a bad job. I think she knew she was being watched like a hawk. Gwen could have blow it by going after Sarah that is why she behaved herself.
Where is your discussion and anaylsis that she was not fair?
I dunno. I didn’t watch. To disagree with the LATimes just because you don’t like them or her or the fact that she is obviously an BHO supporter does not justify your “Quadruple Barf Headline from LA Times” editorializing.
I was looking for specifics and only got a personal bromide.
Sigh.
Well, Ifill had to be fair after we all found out about her book and loudly cried foul about it.
She was under intense scrutiny, I expected no less.
Why didn’t this “true journalist” disclose her book to the commission on her own?
And am I the only one who heard her remark to Biden after the debate when both candidates shook her hand? She said, “You did great”.
I was thinking the person who had the class and fairness was Palin.
I didn’t hear it; but I saw Palin and her family leave the stage and there was something there. I also saw Biden’s wife give Sarah a curt and short sarcastic answer which I didn’t not hear the exact exchange. It was Biden’s wife’s face that said it all. A lot of jealously there.
Well, looking at the replays, I don’t really believe that Ifill did anything unprofessional...she seemed fair to Palin. I didn’t watch the whole debate however.
She was extemely fair.
She was very professional in her conduct.
You weren’t listening last night.
He won the coin toss.
Ifill fits the LA Slimes model of Media Ethics: a lying cockroach.
Say, WHEN will the evil LA Times close its doors? Not soon enough!
I agree. I am glad that business came out because it certainly put her on good behavior.
It absolutely was better to have Ifill as moderator under the ethical cloud than to have someone else, who would in fact be just as biased, operating without that handicap.That said, moderators ruin debates. Why do they exist at all? You could divy up the time between the candidates using a chess time controlling the microphones, and just let the candidates talk about what they want to. That would be transcendently better than having a third party "positioned" above the person who is going to be vice President (even worse, president in the case of McCain v. Obama) of the United States.
The reason it is inevitable that moderators are inevitably "liberal" is simple. Moderators are journalists, and journalists define "objectivity" as what they themselves are - and they define "liberal" (or, synonym, "progressive") as exactly the same as "objective" except that the term "objective" is applied, always and exclusively, to working journalists. The same person with the same attitudes (George Stephanopolis, poster boy) can be a "liberal" operative or an "objective" journalist. There is no example of a conservative activist being recognized as "objective" by journalists.
My thoughts exactly....there was one he started answering I think before she finished asking!
Having said that, I concur with the others here that Ifill had far too many eyes on her and a 'hugh' ethics issue to even give an appearance of favoritism. Any complaint about her would taint the election and give the GOP every right to bash her and the MSM all the more so.
No questions on immigration or abortion. Wonder why?
You noticed that too. My daughter said the same thing not long into the debate.
Ifill wasn't.
Nuff said.
What side of the coin gives one FIRST and LAST chance to speak?
Nope.
In the light of the failure of PBS and Ifill to
admit pre-existing financial entanglements, this shows a lot.
Ifill fair — Really???
Ifill got dirty quickly anouncing rules then breaking them herself on the very first question giving no followup time for it. She only enforced “rules” against Palin throughout.
At 12:55 Palin anounces she will answer Bidens attack at 13:39 Ifill cuts off Palin off. She in hurting Biden so Ifill breaks the rule completely cutting her of after only 45 seconds abruptly and nasty as any woman ever. “Now let’s move on here”. Boy was Biden smiling as Ifill bslapped Palin.
Ifill then asked a really bad question acussing McCain of hurting the poor by taking their insurance away because employers will pay taxes on insurance, but employees get a $5,000 credit. While helping Biden by helping him play the class warfare card against McCain.
From 17:50 through 19:30 Biden drones on 100 seconds and is awarded first on next question. Why was he not cut off like Sarah? Need I ask.
Later on (32:30) Biden is doing very badly lamely defending his no coal in America statement, he goes on for 100 seconds whereupon Ifill tries to help him out with a new question of Sarah.
Sarah speaks for 70 seconds she is destroying Biden Ifill again cuts off Palin off (remember Biden just got 100 seconds) to help Biden for the next 55 seconds she helps Biden out of the hole jumping in with help as needed.
54:50 Palin is destroying Biden on the Iraq and Afganistan war. Ifill awards Biden a full 120 seconds. But it doesn’t help much so Ifill tries to help Biden by correcting his mistakes in a question to Sarah who gets 45 seconds.
Ifill then gives Biden an extra question he drones on 100 seconds but is not cut off like Palin was (he is doing poor but OK).
At 69:10 Biden ask can I respond? Ifill answers very sweetly “Please” (break the rules again). Thankfully Sarah didn’t give Ifill a chance to cut her off this time by speaking up loudly and quickly.
On the next question they joked a little. Ifill was somewhat fair for the last 20 minutes as Biden made no major mistakes, other than his normal lieing.
I would imaging that Biden most likely got a few more minutes total time than Sarah.
Great observation, especially the illegal immigration issue. Silence.
Only because our side got out the truth about her silly book. I saw Lawrence O'Donnell on "Morning Joe" say that she lost last night. If the liberals are pissed off with her, I'm happy. To me, she was what was depicted in the photo at the top of this thread - lame.
I really wish Sarah would have ribbed Joe: “Stand up, Gwen!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.