Except that this is exactly the tactic the right has used to re-frame the public conversation shift the political center rightwards. Make bullshit objections to legitimate, professional, unbiased journalism and thus get it balanced with someone from the far right. Right balances center, the left is marginalized.
Bowing to this won’t accomplish anything, because the tactic operates regardless of whether there is any legitimate appearance of bias, and, in fact, is more effective when there was no bias in the first place.
The fallacy in all this is your assumption that Ifill’s book is about Obama. It isn’t.
Not without people noticing and the scores in debates are kept by the audience, not by the moderators. If the moderator shows bias, the audience adjusts the scores accordingly.
In any case, the McCain campaign agreed to Ifill as the moderator already knowing full well about this book. Why did they do that if they thought she wouldn’t be fair?
The ideal is that he or she not be biased. Again, I hold Russert up as the ideal. I didn’t know his bias and from watching him I was unable to discern any. That served both him and us well.
This is the same argument for newspapers being unbiased and what has hurt the NYT so much.
Please see my most recent posts in which I ask about assumptions having to do with celebrity and book sales.
Her bias (financial interest) disallows the debate from being viewed as fair and even-handed. Judges recuse themselves for this very reason all the time. The question is not just would the trial be fair, but could it be seen as unfair.
Really. Even though none of them have. They had the power to do so, why do you think they didn’t write books that gave them a financial interest in one candidate or party over the other. Brokaw and Russert both wrote books. Surely a book by one of them that used a popular politician’s name in the title would have sold pretty well. Why do you think that they restricted their books to what could be construed as apolitical?
The debate is tomorrow, though. If they are given a hint that the Obama people think this is a problem, the McCain people are going to snatch at this as an excuse to cancel the debate. I bet that’s what they’re hoping to do, still.
Actually, no, I don’t think he’ll be more of a celebrity if he wins. At least, not in January, he won’t be. I don’t think it’s possible for Obama to have more name recognition than he has right now. A year from now, sure, being president will mean a lot more in terms of celebrity than being the guy who lost in 2008. But when this book comes out? I don’t think the outcome of the election is going to make a change in how many people know Obama’s name, or are interested in his candidacy. Hell, you could argue that a defeat will be a bigger help than a victory, under the theory that people are more interested in figuring out what went wrong than they are in what went right.
Please pay better attention. I have NOT claimed that Ifill, based on her past work, was biased. Just as a judge who recuses himself from a case may not have an actual bias, he recuses himself to shore up the idea that the courtroom is a place where bias has no place and impartiality and objectivity reign.
She has already compromised her reputation. At the very least, she has shown extremely poor judgement. That is done. And again with the excluded middle. The point is not that this will turn her book into a #1 best seller, it is that it will increase the sales of her book. Do you deny that an Obama win will result in greater sales than if he loses?
I didn’t say that his name was in the title ONLY to sell. I said that the function of a title is to summarize the book in a way that would maximize sales. Selecting a title is often done in conjunction with the publisher. There were a hundred other titles she could have used. She (they) chose that one because of Obama’s celebrity. They would have been stupid to not have done so. The point of putting out a book is to have it sell as much as it can. This can’t really be news to you, can it?
I don’t acknowledge that it might not be a lie. It is most definitely a lie. What i acknowldge is that some people might grasp feebly a particularly theoretical straw. While I most assuredly sneer at the suggestion that the McCain camp hadn’t done enough research to know about the book, I’m still saying that – even as a theoretical defense – it’s still teh lame.
Please. It’s about him in part. He’s one of the people discussed in the book. AND his name is in the title. Come on, man. And would you now please answer those three questions?
I don’t think that’s right. The audience can only judge on which questions were asked. Surely you’d agree that there are questions that a candidate wish would NOT be asked, because they don’t put him in the best light.
What? You just posted that this may NOT be the case.
You could argue that if the book was coming out Nov. 4. Two and half months from now he will not be near the celebrity he is now. And the release date is Inauguration Day. If her were to win, that would be the best day to release it. Don’t you think the publisher’s PR department planned it for that very reason?
And name recognition does not equal celebrity. Name recognition is more easily maxed out.
It’s not about him. It’s a wonk political science book. It is no way a popular “celebrity” book.
1.Both candidates will be asked the same questions.
2. If Palin is asked unfair questions, you are free to scream yoyr head off about it. Are you afraid that you would personally be unable to spot bias?
No, I said that some people might try to claim it’s not the case. I’m not conceding there’s any possibility that they’re right, only saying that even if they were hypothetically right that the McCain campaign had been too incompetent to know about Ifill’s book, that’s still not an indication of any attempt to deceive by Ifill, only incompetent research by the McCain camp. A dangerous level of incompetence from someone who wants to be CiC.
You’ve said she has a financial interest in Obama winning. That’s a bias. You’ve said this many, many times, which is the next best thing to proving it or offering evidence.
I think it might, some. I think your statement that he’ll be a bigger celebrity if he wins is stupid, though. He’s been running for President since early 2007. He can’t get any more famous at this point.
By the way, I think you’re confused about what the excluded middle actually means. I was not excluding the middle, I just mocking your claim. And I’ll say it again: we don’t know the terms of Ifill’s contract, so we don’t know if she would benefit even theoretically.
Are you really sure you want to argue that they’re incompetent and not liars?
If this book would have been a dealbreaker for the McCain campaign and they didn’t find out about it, Palin gets whatever’s coming to her. Provided, of course, Ifill does turn out to be biased.
As I said, they assumed Ms. Ifill had more integrity than she evidently does. So, yes, they made a mistake. If a mistake equals incompetence in your mind, so be it. But unless you can point to other moderators over the years that have written books giving them a financial interest in the outcome of an election, thereby showing that this is something they should have looked for, I’d say “incompetent” goes way too far.
You continue to harp on this, but this isn’t the Obama of 4 years ago. Everybody knows who he is. His “celebrity” status and saturation point in terms of media visibility is at its peak. He’s not going to become suddenly more famous among book buyers if he becomes POTUS. So it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone who that book would appeal to would buy it regardless of whether he eventually wins or loses, and the election’s outcome will be largely incidental to the final sales. Might there be a slight uptick? Possibly (or perhaps “probably”) but you act as if it’s a foregone conclusion, which it is not.
In fact, I would say that the danger of her sullying her reputation by showing a Biden-bias (whether it actually exists or not) in the debate is far greater in affecting any potential book sales. They know who Obama is, but most people don’t know who she is, and if she becomes “that moderator who stuck it to Palin”, that will affect sales far more.
So you have yet to have shown that she’s ever shown any bias–or in fact ever would. All you’ve done is create a far-fetched hypothetical conflict-of-interest that can easily be negated by an equally far-fetched hypothetical incentive for her not to endanger her future sales.
It’s hard enough to take your arguments seriously without this passive aggressive bullshit. This kind of complaint is mainly employed by whining children and I don’t think it’s ever convinced anybody.
