Gwen Ifill to release book featuring Obama in January. WTF?

[Maeglin]

@Bosstone

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.

Yup. This is just another example of vetting, McCain style. That is to say, not at all.

[DoctorJ]

Anybody who makes over $250K, and particularly anyone who makes over $600K, has a financial interest in a McCain victory based on their tax plans.

I don’t know what kind of money Ifill makes, but I’m willing to bet that anything she loses from slower book sales if McCain wins would be outweighed by her tax cut.

And I’m sure Tom Brokaw makes enough money that the difference in his tax bill between the McCain and Obama plans would be significant. Should he recuse himself?

[Miller]

@magellan01

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.

I still don’t understand this at all. If Ifill asks a question in which you cannot determine any bias, how does the fact that she has this book out make a difference? If you can’t determine bias in the question itself, isn’t that sufficient evidence that she’s not allowed the existence of this book to influence her performance as a moderator? And if you can determine bias in the question, then it doesn’t matter if she’s written this book or not.

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.

But a moderator is not a judge. They do not determine the outcome of the debates in any way. This is an entirely inapt comparison.

[Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley]

1. I think that the outcome of the election will have very little impact on the sales of this book. Maybe a little bit but not much.

2. I think Ifill will be fair in the debate, especially now with the added scrutiny caused by this news story.

3. I think if Ifill tried to swing the debate one way or the other it would be blatantly obvious and destroy her career.

4. All that said, I’m still uncomfortable with this setup. In the ethics training I have to attend periodically they hammer into our heads that the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as impropriety. I don’t think there is anything improper about this arrangement, but I do think there is the potential for the appearance of impropriety. Given the importance of the debate and the fact that there is no shortage of qualified people to moderate, I think it would be best for Ifill to step
   down.

5. Of course, the McCain campaign won’t need any more ammunition to scream about the unfairness of the media, but this is like a gift on a silver platter playing right into their main talking point.

[Sinaijon]

@ArchiveGuy

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.

If he doesn’t win, he’ll slink out of the limelight, just like every other failed POTUS candidate. Gore is the only exception, and he had to fight his way back into it.

[Lemur866]

@magellan01

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.

So the McCain campaign has been waiting, more in sadness than in anger, for Gwen Ifil to back out of moderating the debates? And that if she doesn’t have the integrity to back out on her own, there’s nothing the McCain campaign can do about it?

This is crap of the first order. If the McCain campaign really wanted Ifil out of the moderator spot, they’d have asked for someone else.

They haven’t asked for someone else, therefore they think Ifil is a good compromise choice.

But they also thought it would be good to put this talking point the day before the debate, to lower expectations on Palin.

Face facts. You don’t honestly think Ifil is a biased moderator. If the McCain campaign thought she’d be biased, she wouldn’t be the moderator. So why do you know better than the McCain campaign? You’re just trying to spin up some faux outrage, as per usual.

[Marley23]

Something else to consider, magellan: it’s the day before the debate. Do you think the McCain campaign found out about this this morning or last night?

[Maeglin]

@Marley23

Something else to consider, magellan: it’s the day before the debate. Do you think the McCain campaign found out about this this morning or last night?

Anything, anything to derail this debate.

It’s going to be a spectacle.

[MovieMogul]

@Sinaijon

If he doesn’t win, he’ll slink out of the limelight, just like every other failed POTUS candidate. Gore is the only exception, and he had to fight his way back into it.

Not a chance. He’ll still continue to be a Senator and senior statesman for the Democratic party, as well as a leading figure in the African-American community, and given that McCain would be POTUS with a Democratic congress, Obama will still be front-and-center for every subsequent showdown.

[Whack-a-Mole]

• Ifill wrote a book with Obama’s name in the title
• The books is not about Obama at all but an exploration of African-American politicians road to this point with Obama representing the pinnacle of achievement along that road
• No idea if she will make more, less or the same amount of money if Obama wins
• No question about Ifill’s qualifications and professionalism
• No question that actually being biased would hurt her professionally FAR more than help her
• Ifill disclosed the existence of her book at least two weeks before the McCain campaign signed off on her as a moderator (making them either liars or ignorant)
• Brokaw has been a liason to McCain’s campaign and will be moderating a debate and no one seems particularly upset at that appearance of “bias”
• The McCain campaign stands to benefit if Ifill does show bias. Indeed even with no bias they can (and will) spin whatever performance by Palin as either a failure due to unfair moderating or a triumphant success despite the obstacle of dealing with a liberal moderator out to get her.
  So what have you got again?

This is a tempest in a tea pot.

[magellan01]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

It’s not about him. It’s a wonk political science book. It is no way a popular “celebrity” book.

I think characterizing it as a “wonk” political science book" goes too far. This is not a book for academia. It’s going to be a mainstream political book. At least that is their hopes. Unless you want to argue that Ifill and the publishers are hoping it doesn’t sell well. And the book uses Obama’s celebrity to help sell it. If you don’t think that true, why do you think they used his name? Why not just allow the book to have a wonky title?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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?

So what? I asked you if you thought that a set of questions could be biased in and of themselves. Do you not think the=at either campaign would love to chose the questions? Even though both candidates will be asked them?

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

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.

I’ll have to call bullshit again. You have not proved that McCain even knew about it. You allowed for the possibility that he did not. You just posted the dates of the release of the information and when McCain agreed to her moderating. You pointed to the possibility that they did NOT know, and even offered a rebuttal if that proved to be the case. Come on, let’s not play unnecessary games.

[Miller]

@magellan01

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?

If he loses, I don’t think there’s going to be a major change in his celebrity status until well after the beginning of McCain’s first term. No one’s going to forget who he was as early as next January.

And name recognition does not equal celebrity. Name recognition is more easily maxed out.

It doesn’t? Then what is celebrity, exactly? I assumed it was the degree to which a particular person is recognized by the population at large. What definition are you using?

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.

Wait, what? They knew, when Ifill was proposed for the debate, that she was writing this book. When they said they were okay with her, they were expecting her to back out after they’d indicated that they had no problem with her writing this book and moderating the debate? That’s absurd. And how does being upfront about writing this book, and going ahead with being a moderator after both sides, already knowing about the book, agreed that she’d be an acceptable moderator demonstrate her lack of integrity?

[magellan01]

@Marley23

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.

That is exactly what was offered to me. I replied in kind to the cutesy crowd. If you don’t like it, too bad.

[Marley23]

@magellan01

That is exactly what was offered to me. I replied in kind to the cutesy crowd. If you don’t like it, too bad.

So you’re deliberately making idiotic arguments? Good choice, that’s always a winner.

[MovieMogul]

@Miller

Wait, what? They knew, when Ifill was proposed for the debate, that she was writing this book. When they said they were okay with her, they were expecting her to back out after they’d indicated that they had no problem with her writing this book and moderating the debate?

It shows honor and integrity to play the waiting game and give your opponent a chance to back down.

He hates to bring it up, but remember that John McCain played the waiting game for over 5 years…

[magellan01]

@Miller

I still don’t understand this at all. If Ifill asks a question in which you cannot determine any bias, how does the fact that she has this book out make a difference? If you can’t determine bias in the question itself, isn’t that sufficient evidence that she’s not allowed the existence of this book to influence her performance as a moderator? And if you can determine bias in the question, then it doesn’t matter if she’s written this book or not.

Just because bias cannot be determined doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. As I’ve said, a question can be completely fair in and of itself, but a set of questions could benefit one candidate. Do you deny this. Do you not agree that each camp would love to choose the questions asked by the moderator?

[QUOTE=Miller;10264301But a moderator is not a judge. They do not determine the outcome of the debates in any way. This is an entirely inapt comparison.[/QUOTE]

Entirely? No. In both instances we strive for fairness and the appearance of fairness.

[magellan01]

@Marley23

Something else to consider, magellan: it’s the day before the debate. Do you think the McCain campaign found out about this this morning or last night?

Well, it just made it on to Drudge very late last night. So, I think it’s possible.

[MovieMogul]

@magellan01

Well, it just made it on to Drudge very late last night. So, I think it’s possible.

Ah yes, because we all know that Drudge always reports things as soon as he discovers them, and never in a calculated strategy to air things at a convenient time for maximum effect. What a coinky-dink!

[Marley23]

@magellan01

Just because bias cannot be determined doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

Earlier, you said everyone has biases but what’s important is that they not be detectable. So if the bias can’t be determined, how do you know it exists, and why does it matter?

[magellan01]

@Lemur866

So the McCain campaign has been waiting, more in sadness than in anger, for Gwen Ifil to back out of moderating the debates? And that if she doesn’t have the integrity to back out on her own, there’s nothing the McCain campaign can do about it?

This is crap of the first order. If the McCain campaign really wanted Ifil out of the moderator spot, they’d have asked for someone else.

They haven’t asked for someone else, therefore they think Ifil is a good compromise choice.

But they also thought it would be good to put this talking point the day before the debate, to lower expectations on Palin.

Face facts. You don’t honestly think Ifil is a biased moderator. If the McCain campaign thought she’d be biased, she wouldn’t be the moderator. So why do you know better than the McCain campaign? You’re just trying to spin up some faux outrage, as per usual.

I’m not trying to spin anything. If she had come out with a book about McCain’s early years as a congressman, I’d be of the exact opinion. It would reveal the possibility of bias and she should be replaced. At the very least, at this late date, she should disclose this at the front of the debate.