Asshole.:rolleyes: Do you think that Obama’s winning will not affect the book sales? That she will sell the exact same amount whether he wins or loses. If so, you have no grasp of the power of celebrity.
You have yet to show that this is the case, only continual assumption and foot-stamping.
I wonder if Ms. Ifill realizes she holds the power to decide the entire election in her hands by moderating the Vice Presidential debate. :dubious:
I have not shown that she is unfair or biased. Or claimed either. I claimed that her writing the book gives her a financial interest in the election’s outcome. As I posted to you earlier, it is the norm that people write books to make money, and that how much they make is tied to book sales. That creates a potential bias. And I thought that even you would have agreed that a debate that will help decide the outcome of election should not suffer from such taint.
And you’re comment about her “just asking questions” and cannot affect the debate is, at the least, disingenuous. Do you deny that one series of questions in a debate may favor one candidate and another series of question favor the other?
Or maybe he assumed that Ms. Ifill had the integrity of a Russert and didn’t think he needed to dig into her life like a pig looking for truffles. So, I guess you’re right he did make a mistake in assuming her to have better professional judgeement and ethics.
This is jaw-on-the-floor level stupidity. Even from you, this is so moronic I’m at a loss. The important thing is that we NOT know what the reporter’s bias is? How do you figure?
So you keep insisting. Consider this, nitwit: she did not start work on this book when Obama was nominated. She has probably been working on it since early this year, if not longer, and she has continued to do her job as a reporter since then. Is all of her coverage now compromised, or is it just accepted that a journalist can write a book on a topic without all of his or her opinions being biased as a result?
The word you want is “impartiality” or “objectivity,” but I see vocabulary is the least of your problems here. The proposition that she’ll tamper with the debate on the hope that a win for Biden boosts Obama which boosts sales of her book is fundamentally stupid.
TV talking heads write books pretty regularly. She’s not stumping for Obama, she’s writing about race relations including (but not limited to) his candidacy. The New Yorker drew the same connection between Obama and Corey Booker months ago. Writing about a topic that involves a politician does not imply the kind of bias you’re saying it does.
That falls to you to show the exception. I’m assuming what is the case in virtually every book contract. And if you don’t think celebrity sells, I suggest you see what’s selling at your local supermarket or Target book department.
Oh, how cute, we exclude the middle and discount the whole issue. La la fucking la.
This is merely a repetition of your assertion, not a proof of it. You have presentyed no evidence that Ifill will sell more books if Obama wins than if he loses. Your assertion, on its face, is unlikely since the book is not really about Obama, is not politically partisan and is not particularly pitched at a popular audience. The publicity from Drudge will probably boost sales more than an Obama win would (nobody would even know about it the McCain campaign didn’t throw this out there to try to create some ground cover for what they know is likely tobe an embarrassing performance by palin in the VP debate).
The question is whether sales will be affected by the outome of the elction. You have offered no evidence that such is likely to be the case.
More important;ly, you still haven’t shown that Ifill would have any ability to fix the debate or impose any unfair influence on it without anybody noticing. Debates are all about public perception, not official scorekeeping. A biased moderator is corrected for by public perception. You have nothing to worry about…well, not from Ifill, anyway. From Palin, you should be scared shitless.
Please, like Obama’s not already a ‘celebrity’. Do you really think people are going to go “Well, I didn’t care about Obama before, but now that he’s President suddenly I’m interested in this book”?
So you don’t have a problem with a moderator being biased but you do a have a problem with the public knowing what that bias is? Please tell me that those two sentences are merely crappy writing and not your actual position.
Wait, it’s better if a moderator is secretly biased than to be openly biased? That doesn’t make any kind of sense. Wouldn’t it be better that we know the moderator’s bias, so we can correct for it in our impression of how the candidates performed in the debate?
I don’t see how Obama winning the presidency necessarily correlates to higher book sales for Ifill. The people who are going to be buying this book are interested in it because they’re interested in the current state of blacks in American politics. The actual outcome of the election isn’t going to change the amount of interest in the book. An Obama defeat is going to be just as relevant to their interests as an Obama victory. This book doesn’t demonstrate bias, it demonstrates that Ifill is informed on one of the major issues surrounding this election. That makes her more qualified to be a moderator for this debate, as far as I’m concerned.
Except you still haven’t explained why Ifill’s alleged bias should disqualify her from moderating the debate. How is her bias going to prevent her from fulfilling the duties of a moderator? What can she do, as a moderator, that’s going to influence the election one way or the other?
Yes, on all counts.
That is when they can do the best job. Again, that was one of the strengths Russert had. I have no doubt that any moderator has a bias as to who they’d like to see win the election. They’re people, too. But the best ones take pains to not reveal it. Oh, I guess I should call you a moron, too. Okay: Moron!
That matters squat. The fact is that the book is written and she now has a financial interest in the outcome of the election. And not just for this book. The better this book does, the better the deal she can get on the next one. Nitwit!
Not seeing that a moderator undermines her credibility by not recusing herself when she has a financial interested in the debate’s outcome is mind-numbingly stupid. There!
She is counting on Obama’s celebrity to sell her book. That can be seen from the title she chose. That is WHY titles are chosen. To sell. They sum up the book in a way that will get the most sales.
To be honest, I wish Brokaw would recuse himself from any further conversations about the Greatest Generation. I’m sick of hearing him blather about it.
After doing some googling, I’ve discovered that Greta Van Susteren’s breathless announcement that the McCain campaign didn’t know about Ifill’s book is a lie. The book was publicly announced and known about at least as early as July 22. The McCain campaign agreed to Ifill as the VP debate moderator on August 21. Some might try to protest that the McCain camp didn’t know about it, but that’s their own fault, isn’t it? The notion that Ifill was keeping this a secret from anybody is hereby completely fucking debunked.
I remain your humble correspondent, Diogenes.
Yes, journalists are people and have their own opinions, but the inferences you’ve drawn from that are backward. The goal is to keep your biases from affecting your work. You have not shown that that is the case with Ifill.
That’s unfortunate, because if you could prove her coverage was biased you could actually back up what you’re saying. Instead, you’re saying it doesn’t matter, which proves you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You keep asserting this as if it’s self-evident but have provided no facts. An Obama win would probably help her sales a bit, but you haven’t demonstrated she would be willing to compromise her professional reputation to boost her sales. This is a book with a small target audience, the kind of thing she might guest on The Daily Show to sell. It isn’t Harry Potter and I don’t think this becomes a best seller if he wins.
I’ve been called stupid by stupid people before. It’s amusing.
No, magellan, she is writing about a trend in black politics that is exemplified by Obama. She didn’t put Obama in the book, or the title, just to sell it. He’s the best-known of the people she chose by far, but he’s in there because he is relevant to her thesis. The conclusion she appears to be drawing is one that many other political journalists have drawn in recent months.
Admittedly, I’m working from some very basic assumptions that seem very reasonable to me. But perhaps you can answer these questions and we can see where a common-sense common ground is missing:
- Do you deny that a win will make Obama more of a celebrity than if he loses—the the President is more of a celebrity than the loser? 2) Do you deny that celebrity sells books? 3) Do you deny that Ifill’s decision to use Obama’s name in the title is an acknowledgement of that fact?
Don’t you think that a moderator can skew a debate by the questions she chooses to ask?
McCain is not part of The Greatest Generation. He fought in Vietnam, not WWII - he’s not THAT old. 
You know damn well that McCain is computer illiterate, you ageist!
Seriously, kudos. If they didn’t know about the book or didn’t check, they are idiots.
That’s not the question. The question is will he be MORE of celebrity if he wins than if he loses. Surely, you would grant that, no?
I don’t believe it matters whether or not she’ll benefit financially from Obama winning. The important point is that some people think she will, or that she’s biased in general. This is not exactly the best position for the Obama campaign to be in, whilst it considerably aids the McCain campaign.
There’s a couple of ways that this can be dealt with; either change the moderator, or convince those people who believe there may be bias that they’re wrong. The former is pretty much the easier of the two, and it eliminates the McCain campaign’s advantage. The latter requires convincing more than just magellan. I honestly don’t see why it’s the better plan to attempt to convince however many people than it is to just change the moderator. And hey, the Obama campaign would look good doing it, and if there will truly be no bias, they’ll look good whilst sacrificing nothing. It’s a political gift.
My point is that I’m sure Tim Russert had a bias. That when he voted he voted for one candidate over the other. It was helpful to him in his role that we were unable to discern it from his public actions.
Russert used to work for Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Mario Cuomo! That’s not exactly a secret - a lot of political journalists get into journalism by working on the politics side and demonstrating that they are skilled as commentators. As I’ve said elsewhere on this board, the relationship between politics and political coverage can be really incestuous and I think that’s a really significant issue that the press tends to assume everybody is aware of and ok with.
Russert generally rose above his own political leanings in his work. The issue is the work he did, not the appearance of bias created by books he wrote or his past career. Other journalists don’t rise above those biases. I remember hearing in school about at least one very prominent, elderly political TV reporter who actually refused to vote. I thought this was stupid and I don’t think it made him more impartial.