Gwen Ifill's VP Debate Bias

American Thinker ^ | October 6, 2008 | Lee Cary

[Kaslin]

A careful reading of the questions Gwen Ifill asked during the VP debate reveals several that displayed her bias.

The revelation that PBS's Gwen Ifill plans to release a book on Barack Obama on Inauguration Day raised the suspicion that her moderator role at the VP debate might be other than objective. It was. The evidence of her bias is evident in several of her questions to the candidates. Below are a few examples.

The Forced-Choice Question

The forced-choice question aims to force an answer from a choice of options defined by the interviewer. For example, in the early stages of the Afghanistan War, the late Peter Jennings asked Pervez Musharraf, then President of Pakistan, if the United States in Afghanistan was "bombing too much or too little."

It was a classic forced-choice question designed to create one of two headlines: "Musharraf Criticizes American for Bombing Too Much," or "...Too Little."  Mr. Jennings intended to create controversy because controversy sells. Musharraf wisely dodged the question.

During the VP debate, Ifill used forced-choice questions to further her biases. Here's one:

"As America watches these things [Congress struggling with the bailout bill] happen on Capital Hill, Senator Biden, was this the worse of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?"

Honestly now, how many sane, reasonable people see the bailout ordeal as representing the "best" of Washington?

It was a tee-up question for Biden. He said, "neither the best nor worse," but it was, he said, a reflection of the bad economic policies of "the last eight years." In other words, it was the worse of Washington on the Bush-Republican side.

What would an un-bias question in this venue sound like? How about this: As America watches theses things happen on Capital Hill, what should they reasonably expect to be the outcome, and its impact on their lives?

Here's another example of an Ifill forced-choice question:

"Who do you think was at fault? I start with you, Governor Palin. Was it the greedy lenders?  Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn't have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?"

Notice the choice not on the list -- Congressionally driven Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac policies that forced banks to make loans to people who had no ability to repay them.

Governor Palin accepted the Ifill choices and blamed ‘predator lenders" and Wall Street "greed" and "corruption."  

The Bias-Premised Question

Ifill asked,

"Senator Biden, how, as vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington, which you both have spoken about here tonight."

The key twin concepts in that question are "polarization" and "sprung up." The implied bias is that during the Bush administration polarization "sprung up." 

Ifill is a smart, educated women. She knows that partisan polarization has been part of Washington since the death of the man the city's named after. She also knows that when the House voted on the first version of the bailout bill, many Democrats voted against it.  The "polarization" over the bailout wasn't based on political parties. It was based on economic free-market philosophy.  

Here's another Ifill bias-premised question:

"Governor and Senator, I want you both to respond to this. Secretaries of Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?"

This was a back-door effort to support Barak Obama's "no preconditions" statement made during his nomination campaign. Ifill's bias is that there's nothing wrong with what Obama said.

Ifill knows that, diplomatically, "some level of engagement with enemies" goes on all the time, often through back channels using third parties. The idea that we don't communicate with our enemies is a Beltway media myth.

Hers was a cleverly formed question, since a "no" answer to the closed-ended query (a "yes" or "no" type question) with which it ends (Do you think...?) would sustain the notion that what Obama said is consistent with, and analogous to, what the former Secretaries of State say. Ifill uses the question to establish conceptual parity without the opportunity to challenge the premise. 

(Peter Jennings tied this tactic once with General Tommy Franks, and Franks made Jennings, unaccustomed to being challenged, sit up straight in his chair by saying, "Peter, I don't accept the premise of your question.")

Here's another example of a biased question.

"Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the Constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past.  Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?"

Out of left field, Ifill interjects the man Democrats love to hate, Dick Cheney, into the debate. She attributes an unexplained and unsubstantiated interpretation of the Constitution to Cheney, and then asks Palin to defend or attack that interpretation.  (What interpretation?)

It was a question designed to trap Palin, akin to Charlie Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" question.  Palin gave a one sentence non-committal answer, and then moved away from the topic. The question gave Biden another chance to demonize Cheney, and display his strikingly faulty understanding of when the VP presides over the Senate.  He said,

"The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress."

Say what? This notion when unchallenged by Ifill. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution reads: 

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States."

Cheney, and other Vice Presidents, could sit up on the platform and preside over the Senate every time it's in session, but they've other things to do.  This is Biden's "no authority" interpretation.

Here's another example of a bias-premised question from Ifill.

"Let's come full circle. You both want to bring both sides together. You both talk about bipartisanship. Once again, we saw what happened this week in Washington. How do you change the tone, as vice president, as number two?"

Surely Ifill noticed that both support and opposition to the bailout bill was "bipartisan" in that members of both parties voted both for and against it. And surely she noticed that the most inflammatory language of that week was voiced by Speaker Pelosi when she called Republicans "unpatriotic" (but had no public name-calling for her initial 95 Democrat "no" votes).  

One last example under this category of bias-premised questions:

"[To Biden] Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples."

This question was designed to get the attention of the conservative Republican base in order to erode Palin's favor there.  Palin noticed that and made a point of saying,

"But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go around and round about what that actually means."

Ask yourself this question: What influence does the Vice President have on individual state marriage policies that would warrant this question in a VP debate? The answer is - none. It was all about attempting to embarrass Palin before the GOP base.

The Contrived Dichotomy Question

Listen for the contrived dichotomy buried in this convoluted question from Ifill.

"Senator Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Governor Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Senator Biden."

Nevermind Ifill's specious citation of an unnamed, uncertified source as "some studies." (What studies?)  Note the dichotomy she creates within her question: Biden wants to tax the rich versus Palin wants to take health insurance away from the poor.    

Another tee-up for Biden. He begins his answer with,

"Well Gwen, where I come from, it's called fairness, just simple fairness."

Conclusion

To conclude that Gwen Ifill's moderating efforts displayed through her questions were without bias requires a willing suspension of disbelief. 

Her moderator performance represents another sad day for America's entrenched, and ever less objective, television journalism.

[Diogenesis]

Ifill has given the VP debate the appearance of impropriety.

Gwen Ifill and biased PBS MUST be prohibited from moderating
at US elections.

[TurtleStink]

Gwen Ifil could have shot Sarah Palin in the toe on stage and the MSM would say that she deserved it.

We are so tired of this crap but they are all in for Obama this time and using and shredding every bit of their credibility with the people. they are hoping Obama will obolish Rush and Fox and police the internet and they can regain their control of information flow in our society. just like the guy in newsweek this week they think Sarah and us folks out here in the hinterland don’t know enough to govern ourselves.

[preacher]

Would Liberals debate if Rush or Sean were moderators?

[weegee]

"As America watches these things [Congress struggling with the bailout bill] happen on Capital Hill, Senator Biden, was this the worse of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?"

[snip]

It was a tee-up question for Biden. He said, "neither the best nor worse," but it was, he said, a reflection of the bad economic policies of "the last eight years." In other words, it was the worse of Washington on the Bush-Republican side.

Since he went a "third route" in his answer, Ifill should have been "even handed" and told reporters afterwards that Biden had avoided answering her question (A) or (B) as posed. If I recall the question (I know that Biden was talking about the banking failure and blamed it on 8 years of bad Bush policy), he THEN went on to talk about the high prices of gasoline at the pump which had NOTHING to do with the topic at hand (this was within about the first 20 minutes of the debate and I suspect he tossed that talking point out there before too many Democrats got bored and changed the channel).

At another juncture, I believe I heard Biden ask to ignore the question posed and asked if he could return to the earlier question (again something on the economy if I recall).

[VigilantAmerican]

Glad someone took the trouble to point all of this out.

Fortunately, I think Sarah used the whole situation to her advantage—she knew that WE knew that Ifill was biased and had a conflict of interest, so she really in a way had the upper hand, the moral high ground, and you could see it in her manner.

Sarah “killed,” as one pundit put it.

[raybbr]

Waaaaay to much analysis. Seeing bias in every question is, well, questionable.

[weegee]

The Democrats scoffed at the idea of appearing on a Fox sponsored debate during the primaries.

[randita]

I think Ifill did okay. But she has since whined that Palin was rude to her because Palin dismissed her questions and made the statement that she was going to talk directly to the people.

[ken21]

i’ve wondered since 1992, when that abc news fat chick moderated, why the republicans agree to all democrat moderators.

[kabar]

One correction, the duties of the VP as defined in the Constitution is in Article I [vice Article II].

[StarCMC]

GREAT post.

[MEGoody]

Considering Gwen’s obvious political leanings, I thought she didn’t do all that bad at the VP debate. She did show some bias, but I was quite surprised when she actually called Biden on a lie he told about McCain’s position on energy.

[Doug TX]

It was the most cut and dried case of conflict of interest for the media in a long time.

Everything else is just a side point.

[napscoordinator]

Did you really think she was that bad? I thought she was the fairest of all moderators I have ever seen. Much better than that chick last year that had “ok guys, raise your hand if you are....”(forgot what it was), Fred Thompson went off on her though which was pretty funny.

[napscoordinator]

Would Liberals debate if Rush or Sean were moderators?

Would they be fair? That is the question that has to be asked before liberals would even consider those two specifically. You know Sean would go off on all of them...lol. Rush would be fair and good in my opinion.

[Baynative]

All debate moderators are from liberal sources. Our elections and debate commissions are as biased as the media.

rigged debates - OK
Voter Fraud - OK
ACORN - OK
BALLOT TAMPERING - OK
Illegal democrat contributions - OK

[NellieMae]

The exguity in which the MSM covers up their obvious bias toward Obama is shocking!!

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

Bookmarked.

And, of course, her MSM supporters will both ignore this well-written article, while at the same time lie about her biases by loudly proclaiming her “professionalism” and “ethics” .

Both of which are proclaiming lies.

[Will88]

To really examine the bias of Ifill, or any debate moderator, one would have to consider (in light of current news and issues, etc.) the questions that were not asked.

The stories ignored and questions not asked are perhaps the MSM’s most powerful weapon.

For instance, any major MSM exposes on the real causes of the financial crisis?

[Tenniel2]

Speaking of refusing to accept a flawed premise: Since when does a series of interview questions count as a "debate"?

Would it be asking too much to have the candidates prepare their respective remarks on a given issue -- you know, the kind that used to start with "Resolved: ...." -- and state their cases, make counterarguments, and offer rebuttals, in a setting in which all the "moderator" does is watch the clock and press the green and yellow and red timer buttons?

Yes, I know... (sigh)

[Diogenesis]

[JFC]

Ifill was overjoyed when the Biden family came to her after the debate. I heard her say, excellent job, Joe.

BIASED yes!

[PGalt]

OUTSTANDING job of deconstructing a propagandist by Lee Cary! Thanks for posting. While Sarah is still pulling the arrows out, Ifill - the little woman with the big horn - orchestrates another unchallenged attack every time she broadcasts.

Thank you Lee Cary!

Debate? LOL!

[SJSAMPLE]

I didn’t note any partiuclar bias.

That said, the “appearance of impropriety” should have caused Ifill to withdraw as the moderator.

[bonnieblue4me]

PING

[Kaslin]

Ifill was overjoyed when the Biden family came to her after the debate. I heard her say, excellent job, Joe.

Actually that is not quite true. She said "Good job, Joe" Which surprised me. I would have expected her to say what you said she said

[Senator Goldwater]

PBS MUST be prohibited from moderating at US elections.

---

Exactly. PBS is a house organ of the Democrat Party.

[jurroppi1]

did you mean exiguity

[Diogenesis]

Gov. S. Palin - 1
Ethics at PBS - 0

[Judith Anne]

I heard, “You did great, Joe,” twice.

[webschooner]

why the republicans agree to all democrat moderators.

because they're wusses and doormats who want the LameSream Medjia to like them, and they want to "get along".

[visualops]

No, this has already been discussed elsewhere. Biden cited Article I, but it is actually Article II.

[manc]

very true
the Dems even refused to go on FOX and now they are everywhere on Fox but they still will not do a debate

FOX should ask both parties that they will do a deabte and see what obama says.

[2nd amendment mama]

I believe you’re referring to Carolyn Washburn, editor of the Des Moines Register. She was just a bitch.

[kabar]

It was the other way around. Biden cited Article II, when it should have been Article I.

Check it out yourself. Look at Section 3.

[pnut22]

Excellent post. I saw Ifill on a panel this AM and she was absolutely gloating. She was all about how the book isn’t even finished how could she possibly be biased.

[visualops]

Hmm. I could have sworn I saw in the transcript that Biden said Article I. But then I could be wrong about that.

[kabar]

The point is that it is in Article I not Article II regardless of what Biden said.

[Kaslin]

The liberals need to have better excuses. Their lame excuses don’t get it.

[ForGod'sSake]

~*~News Flash~*~

The parties agree on much of the nature and handling ahead of time. Surprised? Punch HERE:

OPEN DEBATES CALLS FOR REFORM IN WAKE OF VICE-PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

For Immediate Release

October 3 , 2008

Contact: George Farah (617-828-8296)

 

Washington, D.C. – The group Open Debates renewed the call for debate reform in the wake of last night’s vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.  To the detriment of the voting public, the extensive format restrictions imposed by the Republican and Democratic campaigns, with the complicity of the Commission on Presidential Debates, reduced much of the vice-presidential debate to a series of memorized soundbites. 

On September 21, 2008, the major party campaigns negotiated a detailed contract that dictated the terms of the vice-presidential debate.  The contract limited the candidates’ responses to 90 seconds, discouraged the moderator from asking follow-up questions and prohibited the candidates from asking each other questions.  The Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation created by the Republican and Democratic parties, agreed to implement and conceal the debate contract. 

“Instead of standing up to the Republican and Democratic candidates, the Commission on Presidential Debates capitulated to their demands,” said George Farah, Executive Director of Open Debates. “As a result, the vice-presidential debate resembled more of a bipartisan press conference, and Biden and Palin ignored questions with impunity.  The partisan, corporate-funded Commission on Presidential Debates should be replaced with a non-partisan, publicly-funded debate sponsor that will operate transparently and champion the public interest.”

From 1976 until 1988, a genuinely nonpartisan organization did in fact sponsor the debates: the League of Women Voters.  In 1984, when the Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale campaigns vetoed 68 proposed debate moderators, the League of Women Voters held a press conference and criticized the candidates for "abusing the process."  Four years later, when the George Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns drafted the first secret debate contract, the League of Women Voters made the document public and accused the campaigns of "perpetrating a fraud on the American voter."

In 1986, the Republican and Democratic National Committees ratified an agreement “to take over the presidential debates” from the nonpartisan League of Women Voters.  Fifteen months later, then-Republican Party chair Frank Fahrenkopf and then-Democratic Party chair Paul Kirk incorporated the Commission on Presidential Debates. Fahrenkopf and Kirk still co-chair the Commission on Presidential Debates, and every four years it implements and conceals contracts jointly drafted by the Republican and Democratic nominees.

It has irked me for years why there was hardly ever any meat and potatoes served up in the debates. Got to the point where I quit watching the #### things because it was like watching the networks' news hour. All fluff, little substance. And EVERYTHING designed to elicit responses about how various government programs should be applied to aid women, minorities, children, etc. The implication being if your weren't on board this particular program, agency, whatever, you were some cold hearted, insensitive, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. Why is it the Pubbies agree to this one sided charade I'll never understand. Under its present structure and format, conservatives will never be well served by it. That of course, is us.

Lots more here: OPEN DEBATES | THE ISSUES.

BTW, I thought I read somewhere this group is associated with THE MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER who many of us are familiar with in their role as media bias fighters extraordinaire. Was unable to track down any connection. May have been dreaming...

[allmendream]

The VP job is described in BOTH Article I and II; making it both an Executive and Legislative position by Biden’s “logic”.