More Media Bias

[Shady]

Looks like Gwen Ifill is the moderator for the Vice Presidential Debate. And suprise, suprise, she's totally in the tank for Obama. Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media aren't even trying to pretend to be objective journalists anymore? It's like they've decided that Obama must be elected at all cost, so they're going to put their heads down, and drive to that goal, and clean up the image mess after the election. It's truely unbelievable.

Amazon

[sharkman]

How do these 'moderators' get chosen? This is beyond pathetic.

[WIP]

Well since both candidates agreed to the debate schedule formats, and choice of moderators, this could be another example of John McCain failing to do a proper background check, since the announcement of publication of the book was made two weeks before the debates were scheduled!

One more example that Mr. Man-of-action makes decisions before he knows anything about the facts!

[guyser]

Well since both candidates agreed to the debate schedule formats, and choice of moderators, this could be another example of John McCain failing to do a proper background check, since the announcement of publication of the book was made two weeks before the debates were scheduled!

One more example that Mr. Man-of-action makes decisions before he knows anything about the facts!

That is crazy . Reps seem to have been asleep at the wheel on this one.

She should not be a mod since her allegiance is well known. There are thousands of others who would have been available.

[BubberMiley]

Maybe McCain figured she was a professional and wouldn't let her own opinions colour the debate. I don't think it's possible to find any moderator who does not harbour opinions, but if those opinions show up in the debate, that would be unacceptable.

I wonder why no one has confidence in McCain's judgement in approving the debate moderators. Maybe they've lost faith since the Sarah Palin debacle.

[bush_cheney2004]

The presidential debate process is controlled by the two major parties to the exclusion of all others (or the debate circus in Canada re: Ms. May). This has been so since the League of Women Voters were fired in 1987.

http://www.debates.org/pages/news_111908.html

Enjoy the very contrived show.....

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think it's possible to find any moderator who does not harbour opinions....

That's true. The only other option would be to find a moderator who's not supporting either candidate. And where would one find someone intelligent, knowledgeable about politics, and doesn't care who becomes president? Doesn't have an opinion on who they would like to win? Who wouldn't be voting for one candidate or the other?

But like you said, a professional doesn't bring their bias into a job such as moderating the VP debates. I guess some people just find the fact that people can be fair too difficult to comprehend. Or maybe they're already looking for excuses for when Palin comes across badly in the debates-- because if her interviews are any indication, that's what's going to happen.

[sharkman]

But like you said, a professional doesn't bring their bias into a job such as moderating the VP debates. I guess some people just find the fact that people can be fair too difficult to comprehend. Or maybe they're already looking for excuses for when Palin comes across badly in the debates-- because if her interviews are any indication, that's what's going to happen.

What? A professional would divulge an upcoming 'love in' book on one of the candidates, and then the selection committee would strike her from the list. If Obama wins, her book will do quite well, easily earning her hundreds of thousands. She has a mind boggling conflict of interest. Her interest in the book doing well is in conflict with her intent on being objective, end of story.

[Shady]

What? A professional would divulge an upcoming 'love in' book on one of the candidates, and then the selection committee would strike her from the list. If Obama wins, her book will do quite well, easily earning her hundreds of thousands. She has a mind boggling conflict of interest. Her interest in the book doing well is in conflict with her intent on being objective, end of story.

Exactly. At best, it's a conflict of interest. And well, this doesn't help her credibility either.

The host of PBS’ “Washington Week” and senior correspondent on “The NewsHour” said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book. The commission had no immediate comment when contacted by The Associated Press

MSNBC

I guess she didn't think it was important enough to divulge.

[Liam]

Looks like Gwen Ifill is the moderator for the Vice Presidential Debate. And suprise, suprise, she's totally in the tank for Obama. Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media aren't even trying to pretend to be objective journalists anymore? It's like they've decided that Obama must be elected at all cost, so they're going to put their heads down, and drive to that goal, and clean up the image mess after the election. It's truely unbelievable.

Amazon

So, somehow you have access to and have read an as-of-yet released book and know that it contains such information that proves Ifill is "in the tank" for Obama? Or is more likely that because her book has "the Age of Obama" in the title, it proves her impartiality?

Gwen Ifill is one of the most resepcted journalists in the US by people on both sides of the aisle. You;re desperately grasping here.

[GostHacked]

How do these 'moderators' get chosen? This is beyond pathetic.

Would you be crying like this is if she was writing a pro-mccain book??

Shady

I guess she didn't think it was important enough to divulge.

If she had said nothing, you would have been none the wiser.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Gwen Ifill is one of the most resepcted journalists in the US by people on both sides of the aisle. You;re desperately grasping here.

Could be, but even the appearance of a conflict of interest should have been avoided by the CPD. If Ifill did not disclose her project, then shame on her too. It is the height of arrogance for her to believe she will remain impartial, and more importantly, to insist that others believe the same because she says so.

Just another reason why these CPD contrived debates and formats add nothing but political entertainment.

[Guest American Woman]

What? A professional would divulge an upcoming 'love in' book on one of the candidates...

It hasn't been disclosed whether she presents Obama's story in a positive light or not but it's about black politicians, not necessarily their politics and whether or not she approves of their political stands, and she includes Colin Powell in the book. Does that make her pro-Bush administration too? According to what some of you are saying it most certainly does.

But hey. Like I said earlier-- when Palin bombs in the debate, you can always blame it on Ifill, eh?

[Shady]

It's clearly a conflict of interest. And if some of you removed your partisan coloured glasses, you'd recognize it. It's common sense.

[Liam]

Based on what I've read about the book, it's a political discussion on black politicians and racial politics since the Civil Rights movement. It is not about Obama, but merely frames the title in terms of the Obama Age (i.e., modern times).

Insisting that Ifill's book is an Obama love-in without even having read a single letter on the page tells me you have YOUR political shades on. Or do you think it's only possible that a book with the title [XYZ] "in the Reagan Era" would be a love-in for Reagan? How about something like "Death Squads in the Reagan Era" (probably negative), "Economics of the Reagan Era" (could be mixed), "National Pride in the Reagan Era" (probably very positive).

Face it, you don't know the content of the book and have not only pre-judged it but Ifill as well.

Edited October 2, 2008 by Liam

[sharkman]

Based on what I've read about the book, it's a political discussion on black politicians and racial politics since the Civil Rights movement. It is not about Obama, but merely frames the title in terms of the Obama Age (i.e., modern times).

Insisting that Ifill's book is an Obama love-in without even having read a single letter on the page tells me you have YOUR political shades on. Or do you think it's only possible that a book with the title [XYZ] "in the Reagan Era" would be a love-in for Reagan? How about something like "Death Squads in the Reagan Era" (probably negative), "Economics of the Reagan Era" (could be mixed), "National Pride in the Reagan Era" (probably very positive).

Face it, you don't know the content of the book and have not only pre-judged it but Ifill as well.

None have answered my point. She has a book coming out in January with Age of Obama on the cover. If Obama loses the election the book's title will be out of touch with reality and it will not sell. If he wins, it will sell like hot cakes. She therefore has a major conflict of interest and should have revealed this.

[bush_cheney2004]

None have answered my point. She has a book coming out in January with Age of Obama on the cover. If Obama loses the election the book's title will be out of touch with reality and it will not sell. If he wins, it will sell like hot cakes. She therefore has a major conflict of interest and should have revealed this.

No doubt.....but I think she over compensated tonight, taking Biden to task at one point when she didn't have to as "moderator".

[Oleg Bach]

None have answered my point. She has a book coming out in January with Age of Obama on the cover. If Obama loses the election the book's title will be out of touch with reality and it will not sell. If he wins, it will sell like hot cakes. She therefore has a major conflict of interest and should have revealed this.

Obama is not black - no a days if you have 20% black genetics the blacks embrace you as a black - If Obama was as black as coal he would not have a chance - America is a dull racist nation..Even the sophisticated blacks are racists in their quiet way - and most whites are also racists - race is family and they all naturally are loyal to family - Obama is a corporately sponsored white guy. As far as someone making a name and money on a book entitled The Age Of Obama - well ....it will sell - because Americans are dellusional - there will be no age of Obama in realty - he simply does not have the intellectual or spiritual power - and in the end you will find that he is a fanatical religious traitor who is NOT of the Christian faith but of the anti-christism that was shown by his mentor the reverend Write - don't forget Rev. Write! He will be back if Obama succeeds - and he will be back with a vengence. You will see an agenda that is against what America is or was.

[sharkman]

Wow, I'm surprised someone can see through Obama's Christian faith. Rev. Wright preaches a pluralistic faith which says that Muslims are correct as well as Christians, and anyone who has gone to that church for 20 years can not call themselves a follower of Christ, who said, " I am the Way, the truth and the life. No one can go to the Father except through me."

As far as racism goes, we are all racism. Upper class racism, lower class racism, woman/man racism, whatever you want to call it, it's all hatred of someone different than you.

[lukin]

Looks like Gwen Ifill is the moderator for the Vice Presidential Debate. And suprise, suprise, she's totally in the tank for Obama. Has anyone else noticed that the mainstream media aren't even trying to pretend to be objective journalists anymore? It's like they've decided that Obama must be elected at all cost, so they're going to put their heads down, and drive to that goal, and clean up the image mess after the election. It's truely unbelievable.

Amazon

You're totally right about the media bias. A study at UCLA on this topic found that 80% of media in the USA leans left. That includes tv, newspapers, and radio. 80%!!!!

If that is all people hear, that will be all people believe. Humans are much like cattle.

[WIP]

Wow, I'm surprised someone can see through Obama's Christian faith. Rev. Wright preaches a pluralistic faith which says that Muslims are correct as well as Christians, and anyone who has gone to that church for 20 years can not call themselves a follower of Christ, who said, " I am the Way, the truth and the life. No one can go to the Father except through me."

I thought all of you conservative drones got the memo to shut up about Rev. Wright when Sarah Palin joined the ticket and word got out about her own crazy pastor problems! Such as God punishes Jews who don't convert to Christ, and Alaska is going to be a "refuge state" in the coming battle of armageddon, or this guy, who accused a woman in his native Kenya of being a witch who causes traffic accidents!!!!, and visited the church to anoint the new governor of Alaska and

. And Sarah believes that

Before Palin came along, the knock against Barach Obama was Rev. Wright and his lack of experience; by nominating Sarah Palin to be a faint, feeble heartbeat away from the presidency, both arguments have been taken off the table.

As far as racism goes, we are all racism. Upper class racism, lower class racism, woman/man racism, whatever you want to call it, it's all hatred of someone different than you.

And you can bet that much of the objections about Obama being accused of being a secret Muslim or not being a "real American" are expressions of racism in Morse Code. There is no other logical reason why a Republican candidate for president should even be within 10 points in the opinion polls, after the disasters that the Bush Administration will leave behind as its legacy.

[Liam]

So I'm waiting for someone who watched the debate point to evidence of Gwen Ifill's bias based on her performance last night. Anyone?

[guyser]

So I'm waiting for someone who watched the debate point to evidence of Gwen Ifill's bias based on her performance last night. Anyone?

Read the Rep forums. Plenty of hysterics on how she was "not fair" in her questioning.

I couldnt find fault, or I missed it if she did. I would imagine she read the news papers and was most careful on not being biased.

[GostHacked]

None have answered my point. She has a book coming out in January with Age of Obama on the cover. If Obama loses the election the book's title will be out of touch with reality and it will not sell. If he wins, it will sell like hot cakes. She therefore has a major conflict of interest and should have revealed this.

The book will sell pretty big regardless. People put books out on politicians all the time.

[BubberMiley]

It's a pretty good strategy though. Whine and feign victimhood beforehand. Then people do their best to favour you. In this case, Palin was able to capitalize and completely ignore the moderator's questions, going off instead on the scripted talking points she had memorized. She was even taunting Ifell for her unwillingness to force her to answer the questions asked by saying " I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear." Unfortunately, like Dubya, she has that dangerous quality in a potential world leader of being so dull-witted, she often winds up saying either gibberish or exactly the opposite of what she intends to say. I think in this case, she meant to talk about the answers they want to hear, not the questions.

Edited October 3, 2008 by BubberMiley