PDA

View Full Version : Elections One of the reasons Palin chose Gibson.


Direckshun
09-08-2008, 11:59 AM
We all know how the market works. Certainly the Republicans do. They dangle fresh meat out there to interview, in this case Palin. And so begins a bidding war by the news networks to win Palin's presense.

Only they don't bid money, they bid favors. Usually it's an agreement not to ask about X or Y. If CNN offers more favorable prearranged agreements than CBS, they snag the interview.

That happens everywhere, no doubt, but it's probably not going to be as extreme with Obama, Biden, or McCain, as it will be with Palin who has an entire history behind her and an entire political perspective that has gone totally unquestioned by the national media in any sort of press encounter with her. Obama, Biden, and McCain have been all over the major media networks for almost two years in the primaries and general election. There's little in their past that hasn't been exposed or asked about. Their interviews are far less risky, and so they demand less from bidding wars.

Palin's different. She's a total question mark, and the risk is so high with even a basic sit-down, that there's no telling what the McCain campaign demanded to be prearranged. We'll see.

One thing we do know that Gibson and ABC agreed to was that the sit-down interview is to be in several parts and is to be spread out over two days (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214508.php). This forces the interviewer to play soft on the earlier rounds of questions, lest Gibson try to get zealous and hit her with hard interrogation. It's possible Gibson could get tougher with the later rounds, but at least then Palin only has to endure a small interrogation over a small time rather than having her entire interview become one.

This is just one thing ABC's agreed to. We don't know the rest yet.

I'm not saying this interview will suck as a model of journalism. But it's looking more and more likely.

J Diddy
09-08-2008, 12:06 PM
so palin is bidding favors, huh?

damn here comes another 5 kids

Direckshun
09-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Gibson destroyed Obama in one of the Dem debates... I like the fella...
That debate was largely criticized as being one of the worst of the campaign season, but that's pretty much irrelevant.

Gibson, it's interesting to note, scored the only sit-down with McCain during the RNC. It wasn't soft, but it wasn't Russertian, either. But again, McCain has a lot less to gamble when he interviews so the prearranged agreements aren't that extensive.

jAZ
09-08-2008, 12:22 PM
One thing we do know that Gibson and ABC agreed to was that the sit-down interview is to be in several parts and is to be spread out over two days (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/214508.php). This forces the interviewer to play soft on the earlier rounds of questions, lest Gibson try to get zealous and hit her with hard interrogation. It's possible Gibson could get tougher with the later rounds, but at least then Palin only has to endure a small interrogation over a small time rather than having her entire interview become one.
If Gibson has any journalistic integrity, he'll ask her the same sort of tough questions he asked Obama during the Dem debates and dare them to pull out of the highest profile interview of their entire campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013_pf.html

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once."

For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal -- especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

Some news may have come out of the debate (ABC News will pretend it did a great job on today's edition of its soppy, soap-operatic "Good Morning America"). Asked point-blank if she thought Obama could defeat presumptive Republican contender John McCain in the general election, Clinton said, "Yes, yes, yes," in apparent contrast to previous remarks in which she reportedly told other Democrats that Obama could never win. And in turn, Obama said that Clinton could "absolutely" win against McCain.

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.

SBK
09-08-2008, 01:16 PM
Hey direckshun, is there a link to what you posted or is it a thought of your own?

If ANY member of the media allows the person being interviewed to control what's asked and when they aren't worth their paycheck.