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.
Heh heh.
At, probably, about $12 Mil a year, who cares?
:~)
What a bunch of fools. McCain appears to have set these morons up. Boy, his fighter pilot thinking is showing through. This continues to be fun to watch.
Charlie, just ask your damn questions and let her answer. If you don’t like the answer, too bad! As someone said, it’s not a debate. It’s not a cross-examination.
Now, if you could just do the exact same thing to Obama that you did to Palin, we’d be happy.
“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.”
Shouldn’t that have been palpable?
Ok. Then do these people truly not care about being respected? I know some are elitist.
Sarah Palin has neutered the liberal press.
What about that edited video clip of Sarah speaking about (dare I whisper it) God.
He edited the video and showed it as part of the interview. The audience got to see it to back up Charlie’s lie.
He did not give Sarah the opportunity to review that video and so he demanded she justify his lie.
When Bill O’Reilly can give a fairer shake to Obama than Gibson did to Palin, you know somewhere a Pig has grown wings.
And may even enjoy wearing lipstick.
Noticed that but I didn't think of Ben Franklin. It looked to me like he was looking down his nose at her, sort of a permanent sneer, and his chair was somehow elevated higher than hers. Camera angle? Who knows.
Sarah is a star. “Sorry Charlie, only the best get to be star kissed. ... Bug off you has-been democrat flack.”
I fully expect Bill O’Reilly to skewer Charles Gibson, tonight. It will prove Bill is actually a ‘no spin’ champiuon.
I fully expect Bill O’Reilly to skewer Charles Gibson, tonight. It will prove Bill is actually a ‘no spin’ champion.
Oh, he doubtless meant palpable, but maybe things were getting palatable in that newsroom....
Brie, anyone?
CA....
In my ABC days, a certain later-famous CBS reporter beat us all to the story because he, and only he, was willing to go ballistic with the 220 pound female overnight South Texas radio dispatcher.... at the somewhat darkened courthouse.
According to “ear witnesses” the deed was done while she continued to answer the telephone and dispatch deputies on calls!
Former actor David Hartman was a better interviewer than Charlie who he replaced on GMA which led to his anchor slot.
Totally
There is no one on either ticket that comes close to filling that want except Sarah Palin.
She may not have long term experience as the chief excutive of a state but the other three have no equivalent experience. Yes, McCain claims he managed a fighter squadron, Obama claims he managed a huge election campaign and Biden actually managed to screw the taxpayers for over thirty years but, realistically, none of that counts.
All three have experience as legislators but being a member of a legislature is more like being a member of a committee than being an executive manager.
There are very good reasons that legislators rarely rise to the position of chief executive. The different skills that come into play are the most important consideration. Legislators and committee members succeed by making deals, forming concensus, and placing their will and insight secondary to the will of the group.
Presidents and chief executives must make and implement decisions as individuals and they are held responsible for those decisions.
Any voter willing to accept Barack Obama as chief executive is voting for a lofty speech and any complaints about Sarah Palin's lack of experience are baseless rationalizations
.
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.