Report Comment

A further point to this idea that it is all about perception… Bob Schieffer, Conservative Texan, Presidential debate moderator for a few cycles now. Was he biased or did he have a conflict of interest when moderating the Kerry/Bush debates knowing that his older brother was a former business partner of George W’s and then was appointed as Ambassador to Australia once Bush took office?(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Schieffer) Does it really matter? Does Bob Schieffer not do a decent job as moderator? Similar situation as Gwen Ifil, no?

As for a conflict of interest… this is not a courtroom or a criminal/legal case so take Greta “the hound dog” out of this one, this is a Vice Presidential debate, which is code for a long glorified interview, with more viewers, and conducted by journalists. Journalists who as it turns out make careers out of geuss what…Writing.

Report Comment

The problem I have with it is not her personal support for Obama, but that this is a financial issue on her part. She doesn’t just stand to get the President she wants, she stands to either make a LOT of money, or no money. Greta brought that up in her interview concerning Ifill, that in a court of law there has to be disclosure or there will be a mistrial. It’s no coincidence that the release date of her book is Inauguration day. That’s links the book to Obama in a big way.

It’s my understanding from reading several separate articles concerning this that when Ifill was offered the moderator’s position the book was NOT on Amazon or anywhere else. Only she knew about the book at that time, and she did not disclose the information. That directly reflects on her credibility as a journalist, in my opinion. As to whether or not she should recuse herself as moderator, I do think under the circumstances she should. By her statement yesterday, it’s obvious she won’t.

Until the Drudge and others picked this up yesterday, it wasn’t being discussed. Now that it’s front and center Ms. Ifill has just received more advanced publicity on her book for free than she could ever have managed if she tried. Contrived timing? Perhaps. On the part of conservatives, though? Maybe not. Maybe it’s Ms. Ifill herself who brought it to the forefront hoping for some good book promotion, which has certainly been achieved.

McCain has no percentage in asking her to step down. It would look like he was trying to get points spotted for Sarah, and he feels that’s not necessary. After all, he threw her to Charles Gibson and Katic Couric, and who could be more biased against her. Well, maybe Keith Olberman. But the point is McCain believes she should be able to hold her own against anyone, and so do I. To ask her to step aside would seem petty on McCain’s part.

That being said, I’ll repeat that not recusing herself of her own accord lowers the bar on her integrity and credibility as a journalist. It’s not about ideas here, it’s about cold hard cash in her pocket.

bdjnk, that’s for the link. It led me to another clip of Ms. Ifill’s doing an interview with a couple of female Representatives in which – as it turns out – Ms. Ifill was apparently among the crowd of those questioning Sarah’s ability to hold office and mother 5 kids at the same time. Prejudiced against Palin? Absolutely.

Report Comment

Look at Nate’s posting of the McCain Gambling story. I don’t think that could be taken as an entirely neutral story and from the conservatives’ comments on it, they *certainly* didn’t view it that way.

I *do* think that there is cause for concern, but I also believe that Jim Lehrer has been called “liberally-biased” as have many commentators/journalists from PBS, NPR or almost any other news organization. Fox seems the only TV station conservatives consider “fair & balanced” and that is far from true – ask any liberal.

Bias is in the eye/ear of the beholder. If I stand left-of-center in a particular view and a news story appears to come from my right, it appears as having a “right-slanted” bias. If it comes from my left, it appears as having a “left-slanted” bias. If, however, it is right in line with my own position, it appears to have a neutral bias.

This is why so many conservatives so strongly claim that Fox is “fair & balanced” – the conservative nature of their “news” slants in line with the conservative stance of their fans.

That does not make it unbiased. The best test of something being unbiased is when *everyone* complains that the story or source is biased – conservatives & liberals alike. Clearly, they’re doing a good job of being unbiased in such a case!

This entire story is largely based upon speculation as to the contents of the book and the subject matter. It is true that there can be some really serious gains for her book if Obama whens the Presidency, but her *job* is to mediate this debate in an unbiased manner.

It is unfortunate that the story came out before the debate. As someone said above, “the perception of possible bias will bias the judgement as to whether there truly was bias.” Hmm, say that three times fast!

Of course, given the description of Ms. Ifil’s moderation of the last VP Debate, I would suspect strongly that bias would be claimed anyway. This just gives “supposed” evidence of it.

BTW – at least one of the stories above shows McCain being aware of the situation:

“Queried about it, John McCain expressed confidence in Ifill.

‘I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional,” McCain told Fox News’s Carl Cameron.’”

If McCain approves, where is the issue?

Report Comment

I was being unfair- the fact that it exists is definitely not your fault, Nate, and it’s much better to hear from it from someone who’s openminded as opposed to the slanted dribble we might hear from someone else.

Although I do have to point this out- the fact that it was you and not some uppity ultra-conservative who posted this story does lend credence to the argument in the minds of some. Most of the people who frequent this site do so because they trust you more than the dribble that is the mainstream news media. Thus, for your readers, whatever you post automatically becomes something that they feel the need to pay attention to, while they would ignore the same issues brought up on sites like the daily kos or the drudge report.

Haha, I guess that was kinda a backhanded complement, but oh well.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

I am tense because some days you just can’t win with the testy readers.

Please, send the Obama T-Shirt to Stalin so he has something to wash his car with or Conservative Gal so she has something to dust with.

I can’t accept bribes, it wouldn’t be prudent at this juncture.

Report Comment

You are an honorary god. The god of all things youdecide2008.com.

It was merely a joke playing on the last reprimanding I received. Again, no offense was meant.

You seem tense. If you want I can send you a free Barack Obama T-shirt. Might cheer you up!

Report Comment

Secondly, she was chosen by a bipartisan committee. The Republicans already had a chance to choose someone else and they didn’t. Maybe they did it on purpose so they can cry foul if Palin embarrasses herself? I don’t know. Maybe they gave up the moderator in favor of the more favorable format. I’m not sure. Regardless, they did have their chance to pick someone else.

With all that said, I’d like to see her replaced. Just in the interest of fairness.

Report Comment

God does not make mistakes.

Report Comment

I concur generally, however, it has been updated with more information questioning the political motivations behind the story. I pride myself in updating, revising, and extending with new information so wouldn’t you rather people get the whole story here, from many perspectives such as the Washington Post, Fox News, and the Associated Press, than get one perspective on the Drudge Report.

Otherwise I agree with you, this will put a bad taste in the mouths of many viewers heading into this debate, which it shouldn’t.

Either way, I’m reading everyone’s comments and taking everything into consideration. I apologize when posting earlier today I did not have time to research more perspectives as I do now.

I believe the whole story is told above with the controversy and some further explanation and disclosures such as Ifill’s book being no secret as she has been working for months on the project, go figure it comes out now.

Again, don’t skewer the messenger, I’m trying to bring the entire story here, from all sides, as I always try to do.

Report Comment

Surely, if Brett Hume, John Gbson, or even Bill Oreilly were chosen as a moderator the Obama camp would behave just as genteel as John McCain has in this case, right?

What about all the times Republicans tried to cut PBS/NPR funding? What about, if Obama wins my book does huge numbers and if he loses my book sales tank?

The problemn is CNN,NBC, CBS,ABC AND NPR ARE IN THE TANK as 80% of all visual media self identify as liberal;however, the 20% on the conservative side, ie FOX are just as guilty of YELLOW JOURNALISM.At its root there has not been a jounalism graduate since WATERGATE who did not practice Yellow Journalism in their effort to become a STAR.

As a former writer I find all of it to be a tragedy and in this specific case it is just too close to the edge to be allowed.

Report Comment

The one assertion I do have to disagree with is that the McCain camp’s perceived ignorance shows they did not actually know about this. These campaigns are all about showmanship and framing the context of the conversation…This whole scenario is no different.

Report Comment

Personal bias doesn’t necessarily have any impact on the proceedings of a debate. A lot goes into a debate, much more than the actual preferences of a moderator.

If a debate is unfair due to bias, it will be shown in the questions themselves. No matter what the moderator’s record is, if the questions are fair, then the debate will be fair. And let’s face it- if the questions aren’t fair, it’ll destroy the validity of the debate anyways.

I wish this story wasn’t posted. Anyone who reads this will automatically assume that the debate is unfairly biased- it will create biased tendency to assume bias. People should have just watched the debate and determined for themselves whether or not it was biased, without going into it predisposed to believe it is biased from the getgo.

Report Comment

Racist remarks are not tolerated here.

Report Comment

Report Comment

Report Comment

“Well Gwen, if you would have written a book about me as well, you’d already know the answer to that.”

Let her stay, you can’t write this stuff.

Report Comment