I find it interesting that magellan has posted 3 times, over the course of a day or so, since my questions, but despite her claims of wanting a reasoned debate, she hasn’t even acknowledged the post, much less attempted to address it. I wonder why that is?
Didn’t stop Mel Carnahan.
And for the record, magellan01, independents judged that Biden won the debate more than 2 to 1. Mostly the only people who thought she did really well were people who didn’t need to be persuaded.
magellano1 is a he.
Not sure why he hasn’t been back, but he does have a busy life.
He has to go refill his bladder.
Wonder no more. I simply missed it. While I feel no obligation to respond to every post, I thank you for pointing to your very thoughtful post and appreciate the opportunity to respond to it.
You didn’t answer the question. It’s explores a simple comparison between A and B. Here it is again:
“Do you deny that a win will make Obama more of a celebrity than if he loses—the the President [A] is more of a celebrity than ** the loser”
You’re probably correct about that. But there is a complete disconnect between the evolution/God debate and Spears. Barack Obama’s name on a book about black politicians in a book with a title that includes his name might be slightly more related. Don’t you think? So as much as I appreciate you’re answering (and I sincerely do), your answer is nonsensical.
Sure. It may have been her publisher. I’ve said that. It may have been her. It doesn’t really matter. The point is that they used that they used his name in the title, apparently because it would attract readers. Which was and is my point. So I think we agree on this. If we do, it kind of makes the first two questions moot.
You are correct. But usually financial reward is at least part of that motivation. If you’d like to argue that this is one of those extraordinary cases when financial remuneration plays no role whatsoever, I’ll have to ask you for a cite. Extraordinary claims require clear evidence.
I understand the distinction you make and I don’t see where I’ve conflated the two. I’ve not claimed that Ifill IS biased, only that her having a financial interest in the outcome of the election raises the issue of bias. Now that bias may display itself or it may not. I don’t think it did last night, as I have said. I will add that IF it did, it would only be to the degree that Ifill wasn’t tougher on the candidates, making them ask what she asked.
Actually, I didn’t find the question all that interesting. As much as a motivator financial reward might be, it does not necessarily trump ideology. I want my taxes to be lower, so I can keep more of my money. Yet I right checks to political causes. Also, I favor a flat tax—even if it raises my tax payment. Many very wealthy people similarly put ideology over how their tax burden my change.
A). I didn’t claim that it was her primary motivation. I only assumed that is is A motivating factor. Why? Because that is usually the case. Again, if you’d like to argue that it was not a factor at all, you’ll have to provide evidence to support that extra-ordinary claim. B) Again, I’ve not claimed this. I’ve argued that the book will be more popular because his celebrity will be higher than if he should lose. And again, I’d ask you to keep in mind that almost three months will pass between the election and the book’s release.
You lost me here. But I’ll take a stab at it. I do not know if she is biased. My guess is that she will vote for Obama. Two reason. She is black, and according to polls I’ve heard something like 90% of blacks plan on voting for Obama. More important. I think that someone who goes through the trouble to write a book and includes a subhead with the words “…in the Age of Obama” is probably a fan of the man. I will also add that from what I’ve seen of Ifill over the years I have not detected political bias.
That’s an interesting idea. And I think it would be a nice idea to try. BUt I don’t think it needs to be done. Again, while I think it fair to assume that financial reward is a motivating factor for people—Ifill included—I don’t think it is necessarily a primary motivating factor.
Thanks. On both counts.
But you and others have argued through the whole thread that Ifill should have recused herself because she is in a position to make more money from book sales if Obama wins. And now you’re saying that the money doesn’t matter, it’s the ideology?
Gwen Ifill is a black woman who lives in Washington and works as a journalist for PBS. Finding out that she’s an Obama supporter would be like finding out Clay Aiken is gay. But I’d be just as non-shocked if Tom Brokaw really wants McCain to win. You’re not going to find many journalists who don’t have a chosen candidate; the question is whether they let that preference affect their work. Ifill never has, and she didn’t last night.
As you say, ideology can trump financial reward, and Ifill clearly believes in being and unbiased journalist.
I answered the question. My answer was “No.” Since “no” seems like the answer you were looking for, your claim that I didn’t answer the question suggests you are more interested in being contrary than you are in resolving the debate. But hey, if I have to parrot back your own words at you in order to be understood, I will: No, I do not deny that a win will make Obama more of a celebrity than if he loses. Happy now?
I’m correct and nonsensical at the same time?
Well, given that you built a three-step argument about Ifill’s financial interest in a particular election outcome, of which those two points were the foundation, it can’t be good for your thesis to say that they are moot now. But sure, I’ll agree. Your first two points are moot.
You have expended a lot of energy arguing that Ifill’s financial interest in her book is the central reason why she might be “biased.” My response to that is to say that Ifill is most likely interested in sharing ideas, not making money, and her readers are likewise most likely interested in ideas, not celebrity. Further, the idea they are interested in - the dynamics of race and politics in America - involves Obama as a key figure whether or not he wins the election.
Did you realize that a description of one of Jim Lehrer’s books includes this line (from Publisher’s weekly as it appears on amazon):
And yet, I am not worried that he is biased for or against McCain because he chose to explore an issue that is highly relevant to the McCain campaign. Go figure. Oh wait, the book isn’t being launched on inauguration day, so he won’t benefit financially from a win one way or the other. That would be your response, wouldn’t it? No wait, it can’t be, because you’re backing off the “financial gain” argument. So there must be some other reason that Lehrer can write a novel about the impact of how people view a war hero, but Ifill can’t write a non-fiction book about race and politics.
Gwen Ifill has to pay her bills just like the rest of us. I would never claim she wouldn’t be happy about making a profit. My claim is this: I am skeptical that was her principal motivation.
If her personal belief is not inappropriately displayed, it isn’t bias. That’s the difference between “bias” and “holding an opinion.”
So, “she will vote for Obama” = “she is biased.”
So according to you, we can never have any black moderators, because statistics show that 90% of blacks plan on voting for Obama. Thus, there is always a SUSPICION of bias (even if the moderator has demonstrated years of impartial professionalism on the job).
**DoctorJ **has nicely responded to some of your other remarks. I have nothing more to add. Except I don’t know how I got your gender wrong - apologies for that.
If you look back, you’ll see that you didn’t answer the question. And I explained why. You did now. Thank you. But why your answering a different question than I asked, me pointing it out, and you now answering it would make you snippy, is odd.
I can see that you’ve decided to be overly sensitive and argumentative. But to clarify that which was rather obvious, you were probably right about your tortured hypothetical involving Spears not helping sales of a Dawkins book. It is nonsensical to thing that is an apt analogy, for the reasons I laid out.
:rolleyes: The point you somehow seemed to miss was that if you agree with number three than the first two foundational questions are moot, i.e., unnecessary.
The fact remains, that she has a financial interest. Whether it is a primary motivating factor or not is immaterial. If there is a financial motive of any kind, bias—actual or potential—enters into the equation.
That may very well be. But the point is that his greater celebrity as President (which you have conceded to be the case) would lead to greater sales.
YIKES! A line in a review (from Booklist, not Publisher’s Weekly) about a novel from two years ago?!! And I don’t see how the point is relevant. At the very least, it is a legitimate point that heroism is largely and accident of circumstance. And I think that McCain would even agree with it. As would I.
And not only is the book not being released on an inaugaration day on which McCain might be sworn in, there is no election at all surrounding it. AND, it is NOT about McCain. There is no outcome that Lehrer was involved in the results of which would have increased the sales of his book. Also, the book is not about McCain and does not seek to use whatever celebrity he had at the time to sell books. So, apples and bananas.
Fine, but we seem to agree that it is A motivation. And that is all one needs to create the possibility and perception of bias.
As I’ve stated numerous times now, just because a bias might not be displayed, or might not be detectable, does not mean it is not there. Additionally, it is the not only bias itself that should be avoided, but the appearance of bias. For instance, I think one reason Ifill might have been so easy on the candidates is that this issue was raised and she knew that she had to tread very, very lightly.
Well, to the degree that she wants him to win the election, of course. As biased as anyone might be. But this has not been and is not part of my argument, I was simply trying to be forthcoming to a question you asked.
Whoa! You first sentence makes a leap across the Grand Canyon. Even IF a black moderator might be problematic as far as Obama goes because of that statistic, it does not follow that any black moderating any debate, black or white, shares that problem. And to be clear, I do not hold that a black moderator is automatically a problem even in this instance. Given the history of someone like Ifill, I think it reasonable and fair to assume that regardless of her personal opinion, she would do her job professionally. For me, this has not been about her being black. It’s about the book she wrote. And that would be the case even if she were white. No book, no OP about her writing the book and opining that her moderating this debate is inappropriate.
No. I don’t see what is unclear: fiancial reward is a motivating factor, even though it might not be the primary one.
sell, I don’t hold that opinion about Brokaw, and that is probably to his credit. As far as Ifill, as I just wrote in my previous post, a moderator has to not only be unbiased, but she has to avoid the appearance of potential bias. As I said, I think one reason she was so easy on the candidates the other night is that because of the issue raised by her book, she had to tread very, very lightly. I wish she had been tougher on the candidates in making them answer the questions. Perhaps if her impartiality had not been brought into question by her book she would have. And that would have served us better.
I think if Obama wins we’ll all be doing better.
That said this does cast a hint of impartiality to the debaites and maybe a different judge would be a better choice.
I don’t want any doubts on the fairness when Obama wins, and for the sake of the country I really hope he wins.
No, we won’t be doing better. The US has been partying hearty on tequila and bong water for a couple of decades now, and the hangover is going to be brutal. Obama can’t change that. The misery will be more evenly distributed, it will be more fair. But not better.
What is unclear is why money is a motivating factor for Ifill but not for Tom Brokaw or any other journalist who makes high six figures or above.
I don’t think Brokaw is necessarily a McCain supporter; it just wouldn’t surprise me. He’s an older rich white man. Then again, it also wouldn’t surprise me that much to hear that he wants Obama to win. The only thing that would really surprise me is to hear that he doesn’t have an opinion one way or the other.
When you look at the voters at this point in an election who are truly “undecided”, they tend to be the low information voters who haven’t been paying much attention and don’t really care that much anyway. That’s pretty much the opposite of a national journalist like Brokaw or Ifill. Of course they’re going to form opinions, and they should, since after all they’re voters. You just have to judge how well they maintain their objectivity despite those opinions. Ifill has always met this challenge, and aside from a couple of recent iffy moments so has Brokaw.
I think if she had been any tougher Palin’s apologists would have been apoplectic, book or no book. She couldn’t really win that fight.
I’ve explained this is my last few posts.
I agree.
“Apologists” aside, (:rolleyes:), that is precisely the point. And the book would have been used as “proof” of the perceived bias.
That was a subtly thought provoking post and I thank you for it.
While I agree we’re in for tough times my personal belief if the recession is a hang over then McCain is a door slammer and Obama is the roommate with a bottle of aspirin.
We’re gonna suffer but Obama won’t make it worse.
magellan, I still can’t agree that Obama’s winning the election would make him more of a celebrity. Had we been having this debate at this time in 2007, your argument might have had merit. But by now, Obama is quite as famous as he could possibly need to be to sell that kind of book. For a biography or tell-all book, you would have a point. But not for an analysis of African American politics in the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, whether Obama’s name is in the title or not. That’s absurd.
Besides which, it’s obvious that if anything, Gwen Ifill set up the questions in a format whose style slightly favored Palin, being short and snappy, and not interactive with the other candidate. I don’t think it was intended to favor Palin; it’s just the format Ifill chose. But it was one that happened to suit Palin’s style well. Also, it would have been perfectly legitimate for Ifill to request Palin to answer the questions she asked rather than the questions Palin felt like addressing, but Ifill did not. So any way you slice it, you can hardly accuse Ifill of having favored Palin in any way.
Ifill didn’t choose the format. It was set, and then the McCain campaign realized they had a clueless cluck on their hands and they managed to get the format changed again so that short answers and little “debating” would happen.
It’s absurd that a man who is elected President would be more of a celebrity than that same man who loses and hasn’t been on the campaign trail for three months? Sorry, THAT is absurd. And it matters little if the book is 100% about him. A biography of sorts that is 100% about him would sell better if he won. So would Ifill’s book. Whatever degree his celebrity would help, would help any book which is about him and has his name in the title.
I have not stated Ifill’s performance was biased—in fact, I’ve said I don’t think it was—EXCEPT, possibly, in that she had to walk on eggshells and not be tough with the candidates.
It’s not a biography of sorts or in *any sense of the word. It’s a scholarly work that will have a little *outside appeal. It’s a *political junkie *book, magellan. If it now becomes more, it’ll be because you guys have made such a big deal out of it. She’s probably going to make a lot more money now than she would have if you and WND and Drudge and all those right wing talking point guys hadn’t raised it to the roof tops. His election wouldn’t have made the slightest difference. His achievement was making it to the big time politically wrt this book, becoming a plausible president. In two hundred years, the book would have been worth more than it would have been if Obama weren’t elected, but for now it won’t make any difference. You know it, I know it; stop pretending.
jsgoddess, I didn’t know that. I thought the mods got to choose. That is interesting.
From what I’ve read, the campaigns really micromanage the debate formats, attempting to benefit their candidates. I don’t know whether that’s historically been true.