Media Biased? | Imamother

Miss Missie

Sun, Sep 14 2008, 11:14 pm

lol-you made me laugh. I started this post because I watched an interview on ABC where they kind of like broke down the Palin interview and this reporter was like, no Charlie wasn't tough he was just asking straight questions.

Btw, mimi, I watched it online on abcnews.com.

Tzippora

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 7:13 am

He asked real questions and demanded real answers- which I didn't think she gave. She certainly had poise, but showed a real lack of familiarity with some important issues. She had canned answers that she had trouble adapting to his more probing questions.

I understand why people would have preferred he define the Bush Doctrine beforehand - but even once he did she didn't seem to pick up on the nuance of the issues involved.

Miss Missie

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 9:30 pm

He didn't have to define the Bush Doctrine, you're right, she should have picked it up. I read that if you take any hundred people in the white house and ask them what it is they wouldn't know either. I was annoyed at the intimidating way he told her 'I'm getting lost in a blizzard of words here'. I thought she was quite articulately answering like a politician Smile

Tzippora

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 9:41 pm

Nope, completely disagree. That wasn't politician like at all... not nearly skillful enough. Politicians make facetious or fallacious arguments - she made no argument at all. Hence, the blizzard of words comment.

He wasn't intimidating, she was trying to hide ignorance by saying nothing.

costanza

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 9:53 pm

I have always liked Charlie Gibson (he used to be called Charlie back when he was on Good Morning America - now he's Charles), but I absolutely found him to have a definite attitude during that interview. It wasn't so much what he asked her, but his facial expressions and body language that conveyed a real sense of disdain for Sarah Palin.

In terms of the Bush Doctrine contoversy, read Charles Krauthammer's most recent article and you'll see an opinion that it was Charlie Gibson who was wrong on what the doctrine really is.

Clarissa

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 9:57 pm

ChossidMom wrote:

Wow. She's GOOD. What poise. Not one bumble.

I don't know if he was biased. He just didn't pootzy mootzy her. He made her answer the questions very specifically.

She's really good on camera!

She didn't answer a single question specifically. For instance, she couldn't answer the question about the economy, and Gibson asked it about five times. All she kept saying is how they're going to look into efficiencies, inefficiencies, and, hey, how about those efficiencies? Then she launched into families, being a Washington outsider, etc. She didn't answer a single question, from what I could see.

I like politicians to seem at least as intelligent as non-politicians. I've found McCain pretty charming and intelligent. She doesn't come off as terribly well-informed.

I don't think Gibson demonstrated disdain. I think he demonstrated the frustration of an interviewer not getting questions answered. I imagine he wanted to throttle her at various points.

costanza

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 10:06 pm

But all of the candidates and all politicians have a pattern of glossy answers. I don't think I' ve seen Barack Obama answer anything specific either - other than to blame Bush and say he'll change things.
I don't think any of them are going to come through on too many of their promises because the economic situation is so bleak. There won't be any money left to implement any of the changes they both say they want.

Tzippora

Mon, Sep 15 2008, 10:29 pm

Clarissa wrote:

ChossidMom wrote:

Wow. She's GOOD. What poise. Not one bumble.

I don't know if he was biased. He just didn't pootzy mootzy her. He made her answer the questions very specifically.

She's really good on camera!

I know I certainly did, and I didn't even get to the economics portion of the interview. You're completely right about not being specific or showing insight into the issues.

I agree with you about the other three, with the exception of McCain, who doesn't seem to know a lot about economics. (can you tell I'm an econ junkie? Does anyone have a burning desire to discuss Lehman?) That worries me - especially with so much of economics and tax policy requiring a good grasp of the subject and a good feel for the right kind of advisors. But even McCain is conversant in the subject, thanks to osmosis if nothing else.