No, you wouldn’t, because if Obama had believed there was any genuine bias, it would have been nipped in the bud and a different moderator would have been chosen in the first place. The only reason it’s an issue now is because McCain wanted to be available for a chance to cry bias.
What if it was something that was actually comparable to the book she’s written, like an analysis of veterans in Congress?
I’ll take a stab at addressing this seriously.
Yes, I deny all of this in almost all cases. Partisans often view the same question or response for the moderator to be advantageous to the other candidate and not theirs. There is rarely any consensus whatsoever as to who “won” a debate. Furthermore, voters seem to pay less and less about the content of the candidates’ remarks and more on intangibles, like body language, “presidentialness”, and so on. Both candidates could be asked to read a few pages out of the Washington DC phone book by a moderator yet both sides would undoubtedly scream “bias”.
When you open up the unit of analysis to “set” of questions rather than individual questions, partisans can configure the debate however they want to support whatever preconcieved notions they may have. This is a perpetual tautology machine.
The debates are pretty much fair. The only way to make them more fair would be to remove a human moderator altogether.
They are claiming not to know about something that was publicly announced a month earlier. Either they’re lying or they’re incompetent. Which is it?
Allow me to clarify:
This sentence contradicts itself. The book is not Obama only, but it is about him in the larger contest.
Well, think about it. Celebrity sells books. If he wins he will be a bigger celebrity, especially on the day the first black President is sworn into office.
Until now.
If it were perceived.
Bullshit. He was no “liason”. He went to the heads of NBC because Olberman’s extreme partisanship was impugning both the reputation of the network and Brokaw himself. That was obvious when I saw how uncomfortable Brokaw was when Olberman would set up him and Matthews with a question.
If it is preceiveable, which I doubt it will be. If there’s any bias my guess is that it will be in the selection of the questions.
No. It is about Obama and three other prominent black leaders. Obama just happens to be the highest profile, hence the title.
Example Of Integrity: Publicly releasing any information that might possibly be considered relevant a month in advance.
Example Of Sleaze: Trumping up claims of “bias” in order to cast a smokescreen around your candidate’s ineptitude.
How about this, since we’re in the pit and all: Go fuck yourself.
It depends. If there was one page on McCain and he received no ore prominence than the other 100 people covered, then maybe not. But if the book covered say just ten people and/or if his name was in the title, absolutely she shouldn’t be moderating.
It depends. If there was one page on McCain and he received no more prominence than the other 100 people covered, then maybe not. But if the book covered, say, just ten people and/or if his name was in the title, absolutely she shouldn’t be moderating.
There was a typo that may have affected your reply. “contest” was supposed to be “context”. But we agree that the book IS about Obama. Not in totality, but in part. and given his prominence, which you acknowledge, in large part.
She clearly has a financial stake in Obama being elected. She should have recused herself for that, if for nothing else.
Of course, PBS is subsidized by the federal government, and McCain questions that, so any threat to their liplock on the public teat isn’t going to be treated objectively anyway.
Another drawback to Obama’s “rob Peter to pay Paul” approach is that Paul, in this instance, is moderating part of the political process in this case.
Regards,
Shodan
I disagree with this as well.
Apropos of nothing special, this thread caused me to reflect: I have no idea what Gwen Ifil’s political views are. I have always sort of assumed that she is more or less centrist, with the slightest tilt leftward. But thinking on it, I’ve not seen her express any such views. For all I know, she might be an Objectivist randbot, who has fevered dreams of being ravished by John Galt.
Has anyone any actual statements by her, concerning her views?
That’s just it! Don’t you get it yet? You haven’t provided a shred of evidence… read: NOT ONE SHRED–that Ms. Ifill lacks integrity. All you have are YOUR assumptions about what the motivation of people you have never met or talked to about a book that you have never read. You certainly have yet to show that a book mentioning (not featuring, not exclusively about, mentioning) a presidential candidate did significantly better due to that candidate’s becoming President. You haven’t even shown a significant correlation between the perceived victor of a vice-presidential debate and the result of the election in November. The debate has not yet occurred, so we certainly have no evidence of bias from Ms. Ifill regarding her moderation of the debate.
All you have is a pre-emptive excuse.
Politically, it might play to the dumbasses that largely compose the Palin-McCain (her words, not mine) voting base. You should be happy… this is a net gain for your candidate’s political toolbox. Yet again they gain a chance to cry ‘Bias!’ with that oh-so-important neutrino of truth hidden in the galaxy of bullshit that will be spewed about the fairness of the moderation in this debate – and thus by extension the media in general – never mind the sweetheart treatment the same Vice-Presidential candidate received after she was announced as a candidate.
She certainly has a winning personality, doesn’t she? Does that phrase sound familiar? It certainly was repeated often enough after the Republican National Convention.
That this has yet to gain traction even in the corporate media speaks to the nonentity status of this … concern.
magellan, this may not be a strictly scholarly book, but I can pretty much guarantee you that anyone interested enough to read it wouldn’t have forgotten Obama whether he wins or loses in November. Ifill does not have a financial incentive to slant the debate, and I doubt anyone has the capacity to do it just exactly subtly enough to get the job done without being detected.
You can just imagine students of the Civil Rights movement and black politics in January, saying “What was the name of that guy who just ran for President in November? Was he black?”
Tom Brokaw has a much, much bigger financial stake in McCain being elected, assuming he’s still pulling down seven figures (or even high six).
If the financial stake is really the sticking point here, why should Ifill recuse herself but not Brokaw?
Th book does feature him. Not exclusively, but prominently.
I’m suprised there’s much debate about this. (Damned if I know what nourishes these few clinging, tattered remnents of illusions about politics.)
Of course Ifill should recuse herself. This is a howling no-brainer to me. From everything I know about her, she’s a principled journalist and her role in the debate would be limited to asking pre-scripted questions. Her upcoming book may or may not be complimentary toward Obama. None of these things, none, count for crap.
Perception is the point. Perceptions are real. They can be wrong as all hell but never discount that they exist, and carry a lot of weight.
These televised debates are more theater than debate anyway, but it’s important that they still be perceived as fair. There are enough paranoids around, eager to parse the tiniest detail as some weird evidence of bias. It’s flat-out stupid to erode credibility right off the bat.
[rant]I’ve never had one minute’s use for George Will ever since it was revealed he coached Ronald Reagan behind the scenes during the first campaign while still “reporting” on the election. Horrendous conflict of interest, and a clear violation of public trust. Trust in the media is badly eroded and IMO that’s entirely justified. Too many “celebrity” journalists who live in the same exclusive neighbor hoods, attend the same exclusive parties and run in the same exclusive circles as the politicians they’re supposed to cover. Far too entrenched in the ‘insider’ clicques, and far too often part of the news instead of covering it. [/rant]
I have absolutely no reason to think Gwen Ifill wouldn’t perform fairly and impartially as a moderator. But there’s abundant reason to believe she would not be perceived as fair by many, based on outside factors. There are plenty of good journalists out there. A few of them even work in television. Having Ifill step aside in favor of someone else could be a career boost for her as well, IMO. A media careerist, pointedly going that bit extra, just out of integrity? Holy Cronkite.