Ifill misses, as you evidently do, that actual bias in the debate is not the only issue. (Even if it could be 100% detected, which it can’t.) The fact is that she has harmed her image. Prior to this her reputation was more pristine then it is now. Her judgement is now thrown into question. As a few others have said, she should have recused herself and kept the integrity of the debate pristine. Not only for McCain, but for Obama. Reading some of the responses here, maybe even more so for Obama. But judgement on her part. In a way that questions the importance she places on fairness, objectivity, and the importance of the debate itself.
One other thing, I think if Ifill wants to gamble a little and see how much this incident will detract from the reputation she has gained over her long career, that is fine. EXCEPT she is not just putting her reputation at risk. She is also placing at risk the value of the one VP debate prior to an election. Bad judgement again.
Yup. The well has been poisoned…from here on, anything that happens will (if you turn sideways and squint) be tainted by the *perceived *bias of the moderator.
It is, however, the most important issue. Drumming up questions about the appearance of somebody’s objectivity is easy, which is why she’s not paying much attention to them right now.
This is a tricky one. Judgment is important, but I also have noticed (particularly in this election cycle, that “judgment” is a catch-all that gets thrown out when there are no substantive issues.
If she’s unfair to Palin, this could be raised as a real issue. If not, it’s people complaining because they’re concerned their ox will get gored.
Let’s say it’s not the most important issue. That doesn’t mean it is not an issue, which is what I get from your position. Is that not right?
So, which is it. is judgement important or not. Again I get that you try to move from well, sometimes it’s importance is overwrought or conflated with lesser issues, so we should just ignore it.
No. I think this is a mistake regardless if there is actual, perceivable bias in the debate or not. Again, in all the years you’re aware of, can you think of anyone else having done this. many moderators have written books, but has one of them written one in large part about one of the candidates? (Never mind releasing the book on Inauguration Day.) Do you really think Russert would have done this? Do you think Lehrer would? Or even Stephanopolous? I don’t think so i think those men would correctly assess that them having a book about one of the candidates being released on Inauguration Day would unnecessarily taint both them and the debate.
Whose bluff? Before your head explodes you might want to consider that McCain is not calling for her removal.
It’s a simple question of what constitutes a conflict of interest. It is the function of the committee to choose moderators using some criteria of impartiality. I would expect the committee to disqualify applicants with long term relationships, business ventures, overt political views, literary works, family ties etc……
Ifill has a pending book that will profit from the election of Obama.
I understand questioning it. I don’t think the facts don’t support the idea that there is a conflict of interest that requires her to recuse herself.
What I’m saying is that judgment is often used to get bullshit issues into consideration. I don’t care about Ifill’s personal judgment, I’m intersted in her performance.
I have no idea if they did or didn’t.
Russert and Lehrer, I think, would probably to write a book during election season at all. I think Stephanopoulos would eat broken glass if one of the Clintons told him to.
Again, you said this book is “about” Obama and “in large part” about Obama. Title aside, Ifill is now saying there is one chapter about him and she hasn’t written it yet. Granted that he could be mentioned elsewhere, but that doesn’t make the book “about” him.
I think that depends how much much one values that the debates are perceived to be even-handed.
agreed. But my point about her judgement goes to something of value to her. I assume she feels it valuable. No?
Yet I now trust Stephanopolous more than Ifill. I think that, as much of a Clinton lover he is, he’d understand the importance of not tainting the debate by writing a book that would give him a financial stake in the election’s outcome.
Oh, come on. The whole book is not about Obama. Part of it is. His name is in the title and it will positively affect sales. people will think it to be more about Obama than it actually might be. Which just goes to show that she and the publisher are counting on his name to help them.
I’ve been around this board and argued politics long enough to know perceptions of evenhandedness are not necessarily connected to reality. My professional experience bears out the same conclusion.
That’s ludicrous. In the debate he moderated, Stephanopoulos actually drew attention to the fact that he didn’t want to ask Clinton about the conversation she had with Bill Richardson and said “I’m not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don’t want to talk about it.” He worked for her husband for years and wrote a a book about that.
But of course, Ifill wrote a book that discusses Obama in a historical context. Can’t trust her. A guy who avoids questions because one candidate doesn’t want to talk about them, though, is very trustworthy.
You’re the one who said it’s a book about Obama, not me. “Part” appears to be a chapter. So how much of a stake does she have in this, financially, do you think?
An assertion you’ve made many times with no evidence.
That may be true. But the point is that not only should there be no impropriety, there shouldn’t even be the perception of impropriety.
I was unaware of that incident. If it is as you say , I retract holding GS up as a shining example.
Just a guess, I’d say that book sales could double. Kep in mind that the publisher, who knows about how to sell books approved the headline (at the least) and chose the release date. Those things are not accidents. They are not random. Publishers plan things to sell as many books as they can. Or do you deny that?
My cite is common sense and a belief that celebrity sells. There is something called a “Q” score to assess who popular someone is to the general public. If you’re doing advertising and considering a celebrity, generally speaking, the higher the Q score the more of a draw they are and the more they can charge. If you’re of the opinion that this applies to movies and advertising, but has no relation to the book industry, I’d love to see you’re reasoning. As I suggested another poster do, I invite you to see what’s selling at your local supermarket magazine stand.
Sheesh. His name is in the title. Don’t you think that most people have come to expect that a book’s cover usually indicates its contents?
The title of the book would leave me to believe that it’s about “politics and race in the Age of Obama.” The descriptions further clarify that it’s about changes and advances by black politicians since the civil rights movement. Obama is profiled as the most prominent example, but black Republicans like Colin Powell are profiled as well.
We don’t even know if her treatment of Obama will be especially favorable. The subtitle of the book is being intentionally truncated and framed in such a way as to deliberately give a false impression of the subject matter.
I think it’s moot anyway, since Ifill will not be in a position where she would have any ability to corrupt the process even if she wanted to. Like she said herself. The proof will be in the pudding. The audience itself will be able to judge whether she is fair, and it’s the audience that keeps the score, not the moderator.
Seriously, the drama queenery I’ve been seeing about this on Fox (aside from being laughably hypocritical) is completely over the top. I keep hearing nonsensical analogies to trial judges. Dick Morris claimed that she will make $350K more from book sales if Obama wins (a figure, as near as I can tell, which was pulled completely from his ass), then said “if she took a $350,000 bribe she’d go to jail.” (On what charges, he doesn’t say).
She’s not a trial judge. She’s not a sports official. She has no opportunity to corrupt the prcess. All this is is a glorified television interview. There isn’t any crime being committed here, no subversion of democracy. You conservatives are getting really hysterical lately.
Since he didn’t write such a book that would make sense. However, Hillary Clinton got an $8 million dollar advance for one of her books. Don’t remember if she talked about any lesbian affairs in it.
Clinton has an enormous name recognition and both her books were published at points where the combination of the topic and the author could be expected to bring in tremendous sales. In addition, both books are basically memoirs, a class of books that typically outsells examinations of history by orders of magnitude.
Ifill has no such name recognition and is writing a much different text. The idea that simply having Obama win the election will significantly change the sales numbers for that sort of book is wishful thinking on the parts of those who are upset that McCain did not take the time to vet her better so that he could eliminate her as a moderator (or are pleased that he did not so that now they can cry “Bias!” for the next four and a half weeks).
It’s not that easy to keep people from perceiving impropriety regardless of whether or not it actually exists. She’s been a journalist for years and has doubtless been accused of bias before, both with and without cause, so she has some perspective on this that you may not. Most of the crowd that believes Ifill is biased also believes the entire news media (save one channel) is biased toward the Democrats. How do you combat that kind of sweeping generalization?
“My WAG is my cite.” At least you put a number on it, even if it’s one you invented.
Of course not. It’s timed to coincide with a (future) current event at a time the issue will be somewhat prominent. But the inauguration will be on the same date regardless of who wins, and since the election will be over, it’ll be possible to get more historical perspective on Obama’s campaign even if he loses.
Your common sense doesn’t match everybody else’s. Tell me why it’s better.
Subtitle. We’re all agreed on why his name is in the title, okay? I never said that it had nothing to do with sales. The question is what it means in terms of Ifill and her objectivity. I don’t think she has become compromised by writing about Obama and other black politicians in a historical context, which is what she’s doing. She’s not the first journalist to write about this subject. I also don’t think she actually has a stake in getting him elected or that she’d slant the debate toward Biden in the hope it helps Obama in the hope it sells her book. It’s pretty indirect.
I wonder who Senator McCain thinks “they” is, considering his campaign knew about the book long before moderators were agreed to. And that “life isn’t fair” call for a pity party is classic right-wing martyr’s complex.
My friends, the “straight talkin’ maverick” who was so offended by the excesses of his own party, has become a manipulative political hack. His sad transformation is a tragedy of Greek proportion.
He wishes they had picked a different moderator… “they” being his campaign employees? This is almost as shameful as the lipstick on a pig debacle. At least I can stop hoping that the McCain I admired and respected in 2000 will reemerge and cut out all this nonsense. It’s painfully obvious that the old McCain is gone forever. Sad, but at least I have closure.
How on earth the McCain apologists can continue boggles the mind. At least the apologists on this Board as they tend to be an intelligent bunch who presumably see this for what it glaringly is.
I’m going to go stick my head in a bucket…someone come get me when it is all over. :rolleyes:
