Posted on 09/12/2008 1:03:36 PM PDT by MindBender26
The Rumblings In The Jungle – Journalists Turn On Charlie Gibson.
The phone lines are again rumbling in New York and Washington. The overriding question: Et Tu, Charlie?
I have spoken with a number of old TV journalist friends in last 12 hours. The haze of amazement hanging over the network newsroom is palatable. It’s as if old truths have been proven wrong, old friends abandoned their dearest comrades, and we all awakened up to find out that 2 + 2 really does equals 7.
Charlie Gibson’s (well, he has been “Charlie” for years, but since he apparently is not the man we all thought we knew, perhaps we should drop the familiarity.)
Let’s start again.
Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin last night was an embarrassment to ABC, journalism in general, television news in particular, and most importantly, to Mr. Gibson himself. It was not an interview. It was a debate, a sucker-punch, loaded debate where one side got to choose the questions, interrupt the other side, and then in conclusion, score the debate and give the audience their slanted interpretation of what it all meant.
The supposed interview was nothing more than a coast-to-coast, satellite-fed game of “gotcha.” ABC could have provided a valuable service to voters. Ms Palin is a newcomer to the national political scene and a realistic attempt to learn her views on important issues would have been very valuable. But last night there was little attempt to elicit Ms Palin’s beliefs on the problems of our time. The “interview” was dominated by loaded questions and sneers of disbelief whenever the Governor dared to give an answer not blessed by the New York-Washington liberal news cabal. Mr. Gibson acted more like a district attorney cross-examining a hostile witness than, dare I use the term, a “journalist” who understood America wanted to hear about Governor Palin’s positions, not his.
A polite note to Mr. Gibson: This was supposed to be an interview, not “Law and Order,” or, as it turned out, “Low and Disorderly.”
Witnesses in the network newsrooms say the reaction to the interview’s airing was akin to the televised reading of the O.J. Simpson verdict. Back then, many African-Americans cheered, while many Whites shook their heads in disbelief.
Last night, the ever-so-hip young producers and news writers, (the ones fresh from the Ivy League thought factories,) cheered; Good Old Mr. Gibson was putting her in her place! How dare this…. this…. this small state governor…. a Republican at that…. how could she ever think she is good enough to be on a national ticket! How could she ever hope to compete against the likes of such Washington Power Moguls such as Obama, Biden, and Clinton, (either Clinton, take your pick.)
Ms Palin, that Governor, that hunter, that right-to-life that weirdo, (psssst… did you know her daughter is pregnant,) well, she had the gall to try for national office without the approval of the national news media…. or as they see themselves…. the People Who Matter.
At ABC, the adolescent smirks ran as high as Sarah Palin’s approval ratings in Alaska.
But there were some who refused to join the chorus. The old guys, (yes, most were guys back then,) the guys who remember how it was years ago were upset and disappointed. These are the ones who remember when facts counted, not the reporter’s opinion.
You see, back about 50 years ago, many reporters were liberals, but a different kind of liberal. Many would take great pains to remove any liberal bias from their stories. The few conservatives, well, we too would ensure our story cut it down the middle, without conservative or liberal bias. We had all learned that in Washington there is plenty of blame, inefficiency, graft and crime to go around. You don’t have to just single out one side of the political scale. The idea was to craft your story so the reader, listener or viewer couldn’t tell which side of the political spectrum you were on. As one of the old Morrow Gang said, “I try to balance my pieces so I get an equal amount of derogatory mail from both sides. When the raving lunatic hate mail is split evenly between the liberals and conservatives, I know I am going a good job.”
That’s all changed now. Back when I started in TV, we would joke that the term “Investigative Journalist” was redundant; that all journalists were expected to be able to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, and we were expected to do so on a regular basis.
Today, it’s all “advocacy journalism.” Reporters think their stories shouldn’t just give viewers the facts. They take steps to color their pieces so viewers act in a certain way. Is the typical reporter now willing to slant a story to help their cause or candidate? Absolutely. If fact, if their story fails to promote their beliefs over others, they see it as a failure.
Which brings us all back to Charl….. make that Mr. Gibson. According to the old rules, Mr. Gibson should have asked the questions, waited for the answers, then let us, the Great Unwashed make up our minds as to who is best qualified. But now we now all know that there is no doubt; Ms. Palin is unqualified. Charles Gibson’s sneer says so.
Up until last night, Charlie Gibson was thought of as the “nicest guy in television.” Tonight, the quiet feelings among some are “Charlie, we hardly knew ya.”
Many of the older guys are not so much angry as they are disappointed. One from CBS was tempted to send Mr. Gibson an e-mail that began, “Dear Dan,”
The old Charlie Gibson was a great guy. We will miss him.
He acted very condescending, like she was a child and he the adult. It was very insulting.....
>>>>That was nice. What is the source?
Old friends with a fully charged cell phone battery, my phone number and one too many Scotches at lunch.
:~)
I really PO’d ABC didnt go after Palin for eating live kittens!
I have to admit, I used to really like Charlie Gibson but after last night’s performance my opinion has been significantly lowered. I will be going out of my way to avoid him, now...and that’s sad.
He only succeeded in making himself much smaller than the esteem I once held for him and dozens of people are telling me the same thing. Wait until he gets back from Alaska to see how much the lower 48 has cooled (to him).
When I took Newswriting (At both Newhouse and Annenberg), the key was Objectivity. Somehow, someway, cute, sarcastic pot shots has replaced honor among these Gen X’ers and Tweeners. This just goes to show you that playing Grand Theft Auto 15 hours a week does not contribute to the civility of our national discourse.
Please provide their names and their affiliations. This article contains no sources.
As such, it can't be taken seriously.
And Pilosi says they want to instill a "Fairness Doctrine....."
The Fairness Doctrine would make sense if journalism were objective. But the conceit of journalistic objectivity would have struck the founding fathers as ridiculous, for the simple reason that newspapers of the day were cacophony of competing opinion, with hardly any news which was entirely unknown to the public at the time of printing.The conceit of journalistic objectivity derives solely from the commercial imperatives of the Associated Press and its member newspapers, and it is the propaganda power of the AP and its members alone which provides that conceit with what passes for its basis in fact. The conceit of journalistic objectivity is baseless in fact, and politically it is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.
Nice article.
We can assume that Gibson was operating under intense pressure to harass and provoke Gov. Palin in the hope of leading her into a gaffe. When no such moment emerged, ABC simply pretended Palin’s accurate summary of NATO’s responsibilities towards Georgia as a hypothetical member was warmongering. Still, pressure or no pressure, Gibson was certainly under no obligation to greet Palin with insinuating questions, false quotes and visible sneers. No doubt the scales fell from the eyes of a few more old media viewers after that performance.
The lefties in old media believes that it is their privilege to do so. That is why talk radio and the Internet are such an important balance against them.
I suspect you meant "palpable."
Turned him off years ago.
Why, Charlie? Why?
“That’s not the Charlie Gibson I knew”
Gibson’s dripping condescension was disgusting.
>>>> Please provide their names and their affiliations.
Sources burned cease to be sources.
>>>> As such, it can’t be taken seriously.
Then don’t
Do you know if Charles Gibson is aware of being held in contempt by some viewers and colleagues?
It is the same as if I said...”Let us all pray that we are doing good and right and in accord with God's plan”.... and they edited it down to...... “We are doing good and right and in accord with God's plan”..... and then represented THAT as an ‘exact quote’.
LUDICROUS!
He also tried to pen her into making the ‘Obama Iwanna Obomb A Pakistan’ mistake. When she gave a “diplomatic” answer (what is required in such a circumstance) he pulled his “I got lost in a blizzard of words, was that a yes or no.”
Can you name one other male in journalism today who would go out of his way like Charlie did to make Katie Couric look like a competent journalist?
As a Charlie myself, I have to say that the condescending Gibson was a disgrace to the League of Charlies. At our next meeting, we will no doubt vote to demote him to a “Chuck.”
You are so right.
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.