I'm told the media elite are in full throat panic over Sarah Palin and are out to get her, have an agenda against her, etc. I imagine it's a tough call in the "tone" of interviewing an elected official. I like to see politicians asked tough questions, made to clarify generic statements, and contradictions pointed out. But is there a point of taking the tone too far? I offer for input this clip of Charlie Gibson interviewing Sarah Palin. She's getting killed by facts and her inability to articulate any differences between McCain-Palin and Bush-Cheney on the economy. Yet aren't you distracted by Charles Gibson's condescension? Take a look and answer 3 quick questions below.
1. Do you think Gibson was fair or overly condescending?
2. Do you think Palin was speaking fairly, spinning or lying?
3. Did Gibson's demeanor have any impact on your impression of Palin's answers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Great questions. I have been tired of the talk about her being railed by the media and all that. It seems out of place. But this portion of this interview, at least, does seem out of line.
I think it's entirely appropriate and answers one's call to journalistic integrity to call a politician on inconsistencies or spin. However, in this situation, Charlie Gibson's tone seemed to be reaching. When he says that everything she just said would be agreed to by anyone in the White House, I was thinking, "Right. So?"
The point of taking interviews like this is to get your talking points out there in such a positive way that NO ONE can really disagree with them ideologically. I don't think it's the ideology that failed the current White House. So to say that they would agree feels silly.
Did he expect her to outline their economic plan on his show? Maybe.
BTW: I'm responding while reading to Sophia and cooking Mexican rice, so please excuse any errors.
1) n/a
2) n/a
3) n/a
Who gives a crap? She is running for vp. The fact that this blog is about a reporters tone shows that tapping Palin worked. The only reason why this blog is poigniant at is that it is the only time we have seen her take a question.
I know you believe in free press. Isn't a vital part of free press knowing the difference between news and commentary? In an interview like this, especially given the circumstances of Palin being unknown and such a high profile candidate, Gibson had every right to go after her answers. It was in fact his job to call out half-truths (e.g., "we lowered property taxes" "and you raised sales taxes"). But if a "news" segment strays into commentary, isn't that an abuse of free press? If you agree, then you see the point of my questions: did Gibson become part of the story? Was he afraid the audience wouldn't see for ourselves the answers were spin, lies or vapid?
It seems to me, if you want to "expose" Palin, just keep asking her questions! Don't let the questions become a distraction. Trust the process.
1) He was fair. He spoke to her in the same tone as good reporters use with other politicians. That is the I am asking tough questions, let's see how you do under pressure tone.
2) She was fair. She answered as most politicians try to. They partially restate the question so that it sounds like they may have given an answer, and then try to work in their talking points as best they can.
3) His demeanor was professional, so I suppose that gave me the impression that she was being professional as well.
Why do we care if Charlie was mean to her or condescending? If she were male no one would be saying this. If it were Hillary we wouldn't be discussing this. It seems that she was picked to distract people from the real issues. The facts remain that McCain has shown no real difference between himself and Bush, yet he has put the word change in his campaign. The Republicans know they are in trouble and had to distract people's attention from the issues.
What commentary are you talking about? Nothing stood out to me as commentary.
If you want to see a tough interview, watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crvINqq5izM.
Isn't that the Obama-OReilly interview I linked and discussed in my previous blog post? I'm hurt...
I'm curious why you think no one would be saying this if Palin were a man? As opposed to say inexperienced, conservative, etc (like Dan Quayle in 1988)?
I'm finally getting around to commenting on the questions.
1. I think he was fair. I didn't hear any tone that was out of the ordinary or unexpected in such a setting.
2. The answer to this depends on the definition of lying. Did she tell the whole truth, no. Did she tell an untruth, no. She said her beneficial points and left out the bad. Politicians do this day in and day out and it is the responsibility of citizens (and the media) to determine the whole truths.
3. No. I actually thought she did a good job of handling the tough questions. She answered his question of taking over a balanced town budget and leaving it millions in debt very well. I think his question was perfectly valid given her discussion of limited, smaller government. However, her answer was adequate.
Overall, my impression was that this was a real interview. Gibson pushed for answers, ie "Give me three differences". He did his job and she did hers.
Gibson was clearly not as condescending as others, Olberman, Matthews, Scarborough (sp?), O'Reilly, Limbaugh (this may not be as valid as he does not identify himself as unbiased).
My impression of the overall interview though was that Palin has a great general, wikipedia-esque knowledge of matters, but not really any sort of specific knowledge. I don't know if that is just how she comes across in interviews or what.
To answer the question "why (do) you think no one would be saying this if Palin were a man?" I don't think people would be coming to her defense when reporters are tough on her. The ABC interview was fair, and her inexperience showed. People are defending her by saying that the media is being too tough on her. I don't think so. They are just as tough on the other candidates as they should be.
I didn't read your previous post. I will go do that now.
Post a Comment