Posted on 09/12/2008 9:24:43 AM PDT by NewMediaFan
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.
Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.
By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln.
Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.
Palin's assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Sure, so do I, but the point here is that the double-standards and partisan biases of media hacks like Gibson are an obscenity. The media has gotten away with decades of slanting our political processes, making it a much more uphill struggle for conservatives to win elections. Of course, we should recognize that and just be better than the libs. Ronald Reagan came through that crucible to be greater than he otherwise might have been had he not been challenged so severely. Still, it is nauseating to think that a lightweight like Obama has a serious chance to be elected POTUSA simply because a partisan media has put him in this position. Fortunately, I do think with the Palin nomination and some other factors the general election is swinging our way..... but it's a long way until Nov. 4!
Governor Palin represents a mortal threat to Demagogue hopes for BOTH Obama and Hillary. Seriously. Palin can be key to knocking out Obama this time around, and whether she is running for re-election as VP with McCain heading the ticket in 2012, or as most of here hope, running successfully for President in 2012, she presents the prospect of the Demagogues being in the wilderness (at least for the Presidency) until 2020/2021. Just look at how enraged the Demagogues in the media and the Obama cult are over her, and it’s going to get worse.
“but the point here is that the double-standards and partisan biases of media hacks like Gibson are an obscenity.”
Of course they are, they have long been and will always be. This is only to be expected by any conservative Republican like Sara, and I am sure that she fully expected the treatment that she got. Looks to me like she gave just as well.
Wait a second. Who exactly decides those rules, and why on earth can't they be changed?
Who says "we can't get it, ever"? Isn't that what the "Death Watch" is all about? Now that so many more Americans are seeing this kind of bias plainly, isn't there a greater chance that to ensure their survival, they (the MSM) adapt?
I think it's defeatist and in direct opposition to everything this campaign stands for to say that we will never have unbiased news. It seems to me that McCain/Palin have already had the affect of starting reform on the media as well.
Given that a large section of Americans no longer rely on the television for their news, and that the number is only likely to grow (since younger people live on the net), it may be that we are seeing the last gasps of a dying institution. I can only hope so.
“Who exactly decides those rules”
The people asking the questions.
“and why on earth can’t they be changed?”
Oh they can be. Fairness doctrine anyone?
Ok how about we make the government cool. Using technology as a guideline and technology is cool. Um ok here goes
New cell phones:
Shrink the size of Gov. Make it easier to understand for people. Lower Taxes(price of cell). One that will be the envy of our friends(other countries). Don’t tell me when I can talk for free!!
LOL. HOw’s that?
Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his “Muslim faith” on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.This is the money-shot. The McCain campaign must zero in on this difference.
They need a slogan that emphasizes the fact that the media is a propaganda arm of the Obama campaign.
"The Media supports our opponents, but we are not asking for the support of the Media, we are asking for the support of the American People."
No, that's no good. Though true, it sounds too trite, with a bit of a whine to it.
How about this:
Open with a shot of a press conference in which you can see the reporters, and see the Obama-Presidential-Seal podium, but you can't see Obama very clearly. The reporters start yelling out a series of questions all basically on the same theme: "Senator, are you comfortable? Can we get you a pillow?"
Or how about this:
A shot of a book-lined study. And elderly man is seated in an easy chair watching TV but you can't see his face. First he watches a few seconds of Gibson grilling Palin, then he hits the remote and watches the scene in which George S rescues Obama from his "Muslim Religion". Then he turns off the TV and turns to face the camera and it's obvious it's Ben Franklin. And he says to us: "Free press? Fair press? I don't think so."
Let me tell you, I’m a woman who, at 18 joined the military. This was in 81 and not a time when there were a lot of women. I’ve been, since then, in many male dominated jobs and I had an overbearing, abusive husband for several years. I’ve been spoken to with that condescending, “Smile Pretty” attitude about 1000 times in my life and when I watched Charlie use that voice and that look on Gov. Palin I thought “you just lost the women” Charlie.Thanks for sharing that. Not being a woman, and never having been an overbearing or abusive husband, it never occurred to me how that stilted prig would come off in the eyes of many women. I wonder how many new votes Palin garnered from this interview.
And by the way, thanks for serving. I notice that when you joined the military America was not at war. For some reason, that fact seemed important to Obama when he "thought about joining". It didn't dissuade you. Good for you. Bad for him.
he will get kudos and pats on the back at his weekend cocktail partiesHe's a liberal. He's one of the ones hosting the cocktail parties.
When you think of people going for "cocktail creds" you shouldn't think of liberals but of "conservatives" who perform a trained-seal liberal act on TV so that later they can get exactly what you describe, cocktail-party kudos from the liberals hosting the parties.
This doesn't fit Gibson, who's already a long-time veteran on Team Elite Leftist. He's practically a founding member (at least for his generation).
You know what really REALLY annoyed me? After Gibson spends all that time with his gotcha questions and dripping condescension, he then makes believe he’s interested in Sarah’s her basketball championship, when he’s actually being disgustingly patronizing.
Gibson was really horrible.
Yes, but what of his incessant questioning re: Israel’s defense? That seemed to be othing but a ploy to get a “gotcha” moment.
“I saw slimy Lanny Davis on H&C last night, expressing fear that Gov. Palin would go to war over Georgia. In his words, that is frightening.”
I remember the exact same reaction to Reagan when he was running for President. He was a Warmonger!!
Gibson comes out the big loser from this hit piece. He has lost a great deal of credibility. People who never watch ABC News will remember his snooty, condesending interview with Governor Palin.
Backfire=Backlash.
I thought some of the post-game analysis on ABC was pretty accurate.
The interview was a Rorhshach (sp?) test- those who liked her going in to the interview still like her. Those who didnt like her still dont. Many of those in the middle probably havent made up their minds based on the interview.
Finally, some of those in the middle who are angry at how the MSM has been mistreating Palin (this interview is Exhibit #256) will empathize with her, admire her grace and intelligence that she displayed with Gibson, and will become Palinized. So all in all, there will be a net gain.
Jesus certainly did not command his followers to spread the gospel “by the sword” but as you know this is exactly what happened in “The New World,” Africa, and in Asia. I know this is off subject but it was in the blog... sorry!
My thought exactly. Whatever they have in the journalist water at UPI should be used to purify the wells at ABC.
I wish, but she wasn’t asked tough questions. She was asked questions along the line of whether or not she still beats her husband.
If you watched the interview, did you come away knowing more about her position on any issue?
“Yes, but what of his incessant questioning re: Israel’s defense? That seemed to be othing but a ploy to get a “gotcha” moment.”
Many of his questions were “gotcha moments.” Did you expect better?
“If you watched the interview, did you come away knowing more about her position on any issue?”
Actually other than life issues and energy, I knew virtually nothing about her positions on other issues, so yes I do feel that I know more about her and I am even more impressed.
Questions...good.
But posed by a snide, lying Dim-lapdog, nope.
Besides the obvious...she's running for V.P.....She got tougher questions than Obama has rec'd thus far...and he's running for POTUS
Questions...good.
But posed by a snide, lying Dim-lapdog, nope.
Name for me any national anchor on ABC, CBS or NBC that is NOT a snide, lying Dim-lapdog. I’m saying that she knew going in and still shined.
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.