The internet has been buzzing with charges that tonight's debate moderator, Gwen Ifill, has a conflict of interest because she is writing a book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, that is due to be released on inauguration day in 2009. If nothing else, it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest, much as would a journalist's participation in a political rally or partisan political activity. This is the view taken by the Columbia Journalism Review:
Gwen Ifill has done solid, important journalism. She’ll likely be a good, tough, and neutral moderator to the vice-presidential debate. Let’s set that aside, for now.The CJR also suggests that the potential financial interest in an Obama victory may raise a different sort of conflict issue than prior debate moderators' personal affinities or preferences for individual candidates (e.g. CBS' Bob Schieffer's friendship with George W. Bush).Conflict of interest is often about appearances. There appears, to us, to be a conflict in Ifill moderating tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate.
I think CJR is correct that there is an appearance of a conflict. I also think that Ifill should have disclosed the book project and its title to the Presidential Debate Commission (which she apparently failed to do). But I also think that the debate should go on with Ifill as the moderator, and partisans of either stripe should wait and see how Ifill performs before casting judgment. Like all professional journalists, she is expected to put aside her personal views and interests when doing her job, and if she is less-than-neutral in her performance tonight, it will be out in the open for us all to see. In sum, any conflict of interest, whether real or perceived, should have a minimal effect because the voting public will be able to evaluate Ifill's fairness for themselves when watching tonight's debate.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Was Ifill Fair and Balanced?
- Gwen Ifill:
- Does Ifill Have a Conflict of Interest?
Well, it will be out in the open for all of us who read Drudge or blogs, or the small blurb on page A38 of today's paper, to see.
She should be the moderator (too late to change now), but she should mention the conflict live on TV at the beginning of the debate, for those who may watch the debate but not read that far into the paper or read Drudge or blogs.
Jonathan,
The fact is that the book was public knowledge at least two weeks before the McCain campaign approved Ifill as moderator. So either it didn't bother them then or they just didn't do their homework.
The internet may be "buzzing" but it's completely obvious why. The McCain campaign is laying the groundwork to criticize Ifill if Palin does poorly tonight. That's why they waited until now to raise the issue.
Besides, if they really wanted Ifill to step down they would have said something weeks ago, when there was time for someone else to step in. This is just another sleazy tactic, aided and abetted by the usual suspects.
An alternative would be to pull out a bag, complete with $$ printed on it, and go place it in front of Ms. Ifill describing it as in appreciation of her objectivity.
So what if Ifill performs unfairly towards one candidate, how does one undo the harm done to the candidate? It isn't like there is a do-over in the VP debate.
frankcross: According to Jonathan and the CJR, Ifill apparently failed to inform the Presidential Debate Commission. I would think that matters.
Never assign to ignorance that which can be used to leverage your own political interests to declare your opponent malicious.
The problem is that it creates a huge appearance of impropriety to have a journalist with a large financial interest in the outcome of the election, since her book will surley sell many more copies if Obama is elected.
What's wrong with bringing Lehrer back? He did ok the first time.
I agree, Smokey. As Byomtov puts it,
They desperately want Ifill to do this debate so that they can blame her for any ridiculous answers Palin gives. When "say, what newspapers do you read?" counts as a 'Gotcha!' question for your candidate, you'll take every advantage you can get. Having Ifill as a moderator is all they've got right now.
So yeah, I agree with Byomtov and Smokey: Shenanigans.
Apparently McCain can't decide how he feels. Initally, he said on Fox News she was a "professional" and would do a "totally objective job." But today on Fox and Fiends he "wish[ed] they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama." Well, which one is it, Senator?
They've schemed it tight! There's no way they can lose!
Karl Rove, you magnificent bastard!
Never assign to ignorance that which can be used to leverage your own political interests to declare your opponent malicious.
Is it worse to accuse the McCain camp of sleazy tactics, or of ignorance, ie once again failing to vet someone?
I wonder that they would want to raise suspicion of lack of vetting, once again bringing the process of McCain's pick of Palin into the spotlight.
Who expects profesisonal journalists to put aside personal views and interests? How can any intellgent person expect that after reading the newspapers and watching cable TV for the last ten years.
We don't know the book is favorable to Obama. However, it is reasonable to think sales will be much higher if Obama wins the election. That's a financial interest in an Obama victory.
Oh, I'm with the Rhode Island Lawyer. I think, given the topic of her book, she presents an appearance of a conflict at minimum -- even if she (as one of McCain's faces has clearly articulated) is a pro and can be reasonably trusted to stay impartial.
But McCain knew that six weeks ago when the debates were set. He knew it four weeks ago. He knew it two weeks ago. He knew it last week. There's a reason he first brought it up two days ago, and it's not because he just remembered it.
OK richard. Are you saying the McCain campaign only became aware of Ifill's book yesterday or so? That they just rubber-stamped her as moderator without checking her career and professional activities? If so, then you're right. It was ignorance, attributable to incompetence. Nice to know what you think of the McCain organization.
I think Ifill should issue a statement along these lines:
I don't really see how McCain can be faulted for not raising any objections to this, when Ifill hid the book's existence from the Debate Commission and didn't tell the campaigns about it at all. It might've been known to a few people before yesterday, but the campaigns were relying on the Debate Commission. They have bigger fish to fry than to think that the Commission would allow a person with a financial interest to moderate a debate.
What is wrong with bringing Lehrer back? Honestly, wouldn't that be an ok compromise?
Deepthought:
The full second quote of McCain: “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama, let’s face it. But I have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is”, the full first quote that this differs from: "I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional. Does this help that if she has written a book that is favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not, but I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job. And I have that confidence." Wow, what a waffler, he takes the same position twice, how can he defend that sort of waffling?
She has a clear financial stake in Palin losing. It's just unbelievable this could be happening. Meanwhile they are bringing people from out of state to vote in Ohio. What has happened to our democracy?
A McCain victory would be a most joyous occasion.
That Democrats are against Ifill's replacement shows that they know she's biased and are fine with it. Biased moderators are the ways Democrats win debates, apparently.
She hid it? Really? Do you have any source for that?
I'm not trying to sound like The Ace here. ("That is not true not true not true and you can't prove it ever!!!") But I think that's a bit of a hysterical characterization of what likely happened. If the debate commission didn't know about Ifill's planned book (and I think it's a big if), and if the McCain campaign figured "Aw, everyone plays fair, we'll just trust that there debate commission," (and I think that's a bigger if), then it's still not at all clear (or intuitive) that Ifill "hid" her book. More likely, she figured that since it was public knowledge, then it was probably, you know, known.
But really, if you think that the McCain campaign just found out about this the other day, then I agree with someone upthread who suggested that that says more (negative) about the McCain campaign than does any nefarious motives would say.
Might have been known to a few people? It was in the freaking Washington Post! Conflicts can be waived, and McCain waived any right to complain when he approved Ifill as a debate moderator. Surely people at the McCain camp have access to the Internets and know how to use the Google. Either the McCain camp knew about this when they approved Ifill -- in which case they’re genius for waiting until the last second to complain about this to give Palin a possible out if she doesn’t do well -- or they didn’t know -- in which case they’re entirely incompetent.
Hopefully . . . but it is easy to dream up ways a biased moderator could help a candidate that wouldn't be obvious to viewers. For example, leaking the questions beforehand.
The reason it was brought up so close to the debate was that the release date (presidential swearing in) was just announced. A smart move setting the release date by the publisher (it was going to be early 2009 anyway) but it does change the nature of the conflict. The book is certainly relevant and would sell as well if released on March 15th as on jaunuary 20th if McCain wins, but if Obama wins a March 15th release date would not be able to cash in on Obama's victory like a January 20th one.
The McCain camp knows that if Ifill were to withdraw, they'd get just as biased a journalist in replacement. There is no way that Biden would consent to someone like Brit Hume or Sean Hannity taking her place. Let the Inquisition begin."
HL, are you familiar with the concept of waiver? Waiting until the day before trial to complain about the judge before pulling the second continuance request? Do you litigate and deal with actual adversaries? This kind of tactic is a sign of weakness and fear and lack of preparation. It's a preemptive excuse for losing. Do you know anything about the Inquisition?
Does the McCain campaign have lawyers who are not otherwise running the Alaska state government? Are they halfway competent? If so, did they investigate/vet Ifill before they agreed to her after the fact of the book was public knowledge? Did they ask her questions? If they have a complaint about Ifill they should raise it directly and ask her to step down; that is, face the issue straight on instead of going through this wimpy waffling whining. Weak, weak, weak.
Finally, how do the McCain partisans feel about Tom Brokaw moderating the next debate; any problems with his pro-McCain advocacy?
Go to Drudge for the AP article. of course, this guy wasn't moderating a debate. fog clearing on the willful blindness yet? I find it curious that someone could be so stupid as to not realize that this is a conflict.
Well, IANAD, but I am an Obama supporter. And I haven't seen a whole lot of people on this thread saying that there's not at least a perceived conflict. What I'm saying -- and what you and others don't seem to be interested in responding to -- is that McCain's campaign waited patiently to make a scene about this until it was too late, from a practical standpoint, to boot her from the moderator's seat.
McCain wants her to do this debate. He wants a built-in excuse. That's why he chose not to make a big deal out of it until now. Far as I'm concerned, I think it'd be great to put Lehrer in there -- that would make for one less excuse for Palin supporters to be rehearsing in the mirror this afternoon. But guess what? Moderating a debate requires preparation. A lot of it. McCain knows that. That's why he waited.
She probably should have declined the invitation to moderate based on the book deal since it inappropriately shifts some of the focus of the debate away from that which it is meant to be (candidate's positions, experience, and personalities) to issues about the moderator. As well, even if Ifill does an excellent job as moderator (as I hope and expect she will), Ifill's apparent conflict of interest alone will give Palin an advantage in the post debate analysis as Palin (or, more likely, surrogates) will scream "bias" and have some justification for it.
While perhaps the McCain campaign "should have" noticed Ifill's conflict of interest and rejected her as a moderator, that does not let Ifill off the hook. While we may consider a plaintiff "stupid" for not having noticed that their lawyer is on the board of directors of the company the client is suing, that doesn't in any way reduce the obligation of the lawyer to reveal the conflict and to, except perhaps in some extraordinary circumstance, decline to represent the client.
I don't think it changes the nature of the (perceived) conflict at all. I think you have a fair argument that it changes the magnitude of the conflict -- that perhaps she stands to make more money this way. But if the conflict is there, it would be there if the release date were March 20 or November 20 or August 20. This doesn't hold water as the reason this became an issue just yesterday.
But it really doesn't matter who the moderator might be or what questions are asked. If Palin botches this debate, there will quickly follow all the arguments that have come after the Gibson and Couric interviews: she was asked "gotcha" questions, the questions were not relevant to her background, ordinary Americans don't care about those issues, she was over-prepared, why didn't they ask about this or that?, she's being interrogated unfairly because she's not an elite, etc. etc.
If anything, Ifill will probably be afraid to push Palin too hard for fear of appearing biased.
Elliot, it doesn't. If it's a conflict, it's a conflict, and it was a conflict when McCain gave the ol' thumbs-up to Ifill as a moderator. I don't even believe that McCain believes that Ifill will be biased. I believe that he meant what he said when he said she's a pro. This is all about expectations. All of it.
DangerMouse, I don't know any demorats who are opposed to removing Ifill. Indeed, the first time I heard about this was from a liberal blog and their immediate reaction (as was mine) was to remove Ifill as moderator. The moderator is not really going to matter and removing Ifill would remove one of the excuses Palin can use if she doesn’t do well.
Yes, I could imagine them being unaware of the moderator's project as easily as waiting a few weeks to make an issue out of it (though the campaign didn't bring it up first, and seems to have made little comment).
I also think excellent the suggestion to ignore it and have Palin congratulate her on camera before the debate starts. Or just get somebody else to moderate.
Lib
You know, in some circles, liberals have a reputation for hyperbole. But this type of understatement goes quite a way toward shattering that stereotype.
Ifill is every bit as partisan as Oprah. She will act impartial. But anyone who still believes that Ifill -- who stands to cash in in a major way if Obama is elected, and if Obama loses, to have her books thrown into the ninety-nine cent surplus bin -- will not stoop to passing hints, or the entire question set, to Biden's people, is a naive fool. Ifill has already demonstrated her lack of integrity, and a leopard, as they say, doen't change its spots.
This was a setup from the get-go. Had McCain vetoed Ifill, the entire DemocRat media and left-wing blogosphere would have bellowed "Racism!!" Is there any doubt?
Ifill has already demonstrated a lack of any professional ethics or personal integrity. By not mentioning her financial interest in the outcome of the election, and by not recusing herself, she has proved that.
It is clear to even the most casual observer that the Plagiarist will go into this faux "debate" with plenty of insider knowledge.
You're right it doesn't change the nature, poor word choice on my part. Magnitude is perhaps the best word for the change. The reason it is coming up now is that Drudge ( and the RW blogosphere in reaction ) chose to pay attention to it when the magnitude changed. If Doubleday had held off announcing the publication date until tomorrow, or if Drudge had not noted it, then this wouldn't be an issue.
This is no different in principle than if Sean Hannity or Karl Rove had been selected to moderate the debate. No different."
You would be right if the Obama campaign had agreed to these characters and then made a prior unsuccessful attempt last week to back out or and/or continue the debate, before making a second attempt right before the event to flip/flop on Ifill. The McCain people knew about the book and waived the conflict weeks ago, and then waived it again by not making an immediate and direct request for her removal now. If Ifill is so bad, why can't the McCain people look people in the eye, face the issue head on and make their complaint? Ask her to resign. Their failure to do so is another waiver and malpractice if the decisions are being made by a lawyer. Weak, wimpy waffling.
Really? Can you back this up in any way? Ifill's long been one of the most respected journalists on television. This is the first I've heard that she's as partisan as, say, Karl Rove. Do you have any evidence that she "threw" the 2004 VP debate? Even any contemporary reports that she was as wildly impartial as you indicate?
I call bull. Smokey, I don't think this is credible.
Really? From the Amazon description of her book, it's about a shift in the political landscape for African Americans, as exemplified by Obama's success. I'd say that thesis became valid right around the time of Iowa. It became rock-solid when Obama became the nominee of his party. Would it add to it if he became President? Of course. But the book's thesis doesn't appear to be predicated on his winning the election.
But that's beside the point. McCain wants her to be the moderator. That's why his campaign signed off on her.
Yes. Doubt. Right here. It's a crazy hypothetical based on a crazy hypothetical. I doubt you. I don't think I'm alone.
I doubt one of a hundred "Obama won" books will make much money. But if he lost through a Bradley effect, then the leading black journalist could make some hay and some money with a book with that ending.
Mary, I'm not Patrick, but I'll grant for the sake of argument that she stands to become a zillionaire if Obama wins the election.
Why then, do you think McCain agreed to have her run the VP debate? And why did he wait until yesterday to argue against the pick? Surely he/they could have known about the book when they said "Yes! Gwen Ifill!" -- it was public knowledge already. And even if they missed that point, surely they would have noticed it when it was mentioned in the Washington Post a month ago. But it didn't bother them until yesterday. Why?
(Thus far only one reasonable argument has been put forth to suggest that it's anything BUT gamesmanship on McCain's part -- that it has to do with the release date. I don't buy that argument, but at least One of Many is trying.)
Great! Let's remove Ifill. Get Lehrer to do it. He's a pro, he can step in on a moment's notice.
First, one does not need to have a 'zillion' dollars at stake to have a financial conflict of interest. A very little money at stake is all that is needed to create a conflict, or at least the appearance of one.
Secondly, McCain said he was unaware of this book until it was brought to his attention just recently. I have no reason to doubt this. And why would the burden be on McCain to discover the details of Ifill's life? She has already admitted that she failed to disclose this information herself to the commission. Does not Ms. Ifill have ANY responsibility to act in an ethical way?
The parties with the greatest interest are the people of this country. The people deserve a moderator without a demonstratable conflict of interest.
1) Induce Ifill to be extra-ginger with Palin so she doesn't look biased;
2) Make it easier to blame Palin's performance on the moderator.
Of course, #1 won't help that much when your candidate can't even handle the softest of softballs like "what newspapers do you read?"
You can 'doubt' that the race card would be played across the left wing blogosphere if Ifill were rejected. But based on what, exactly? Your presumption that everyone will start acting differently?
Mary, I realize this. I'm granting a financial interest. I'm granting the conflict for the sake of this argument. You can stop arguing that there's a conflict, or at least the appearance of one.
I have reason to doubt this. The McCain campaign probably reads the Washington Post. Would you agree? Maybe not the candidate, but surely someone on his staff. Apparently news of Ifill's forthcoming book appeared in the Post a month ago. If only because of that, I do not think it's credible to say that McCain just found out about the book when it was mentioned on Drudge this week.
Yes. And though I don't know what Ifill said or didn't say, I'll give you this one too. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that she was totally hush-hush about her book. Word sneaked out to the Post a month ago, but otherwise, she's been totally hiding it because she stands to gain a lot from an Obama presidency, and she's in complete violation of her journalistic responsibilities.
I think this is a wild mischaracterization of the facts, but I'll stipulate it. Let's say for the sake of argument that she's a scoundrel.
If so, she deserves condemnation. But that doesn't change the fact that McCain's campaign had every reason to know this for a month, but they waited until this week before making hay of it. A month ago, Ifill could have been replaced. To replace her now would be a logistical nightmare for whoever stepped in. McCain knows this.
By the way, in case it's not totally clear, I don't begrudge McCain this bit of gamesmanship. Go for it. It's a smart move, and it's going to help in the spin room. I just don't think the "outrage" is anything but feigned.
Are you asking me to prove my doubt of your unprovable hypothetical?
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Ifill would make more money with Obama as president that with McCain--doesn't it seem logical that she would be equally concerned with her career as a journalist, and what would happen to it if she threw the debates?
On the wider issue, if you want to actually do something about bias, see my name's link. Even if you don't want to ask questions like that, you can always contact those listed and urge them to get involved.
Do you believe that there is an appearance of conflict solely because it has the word "Obama" in the title?
Your assumption - as simplistic as it racist - is that Ifill is going to produce some glowing tribute to Barack Obama.
If there was any bias, it was most certainly in favor of Cheney, as she asked Edwards several leading questions, the premises of which were dubious, but very much in line with GOP talking points.
1. No, and neither does anybody who hasn't been given an advance copy.
2. Yes. The description by Amazon's editors, evidently based on the actual contents, supports the supposition that it's positive. The title alone would rate "probably."
3. So calling this a conflict of interest, in which a debate moderator has in the works a positive book about the top member of one campaign, is racist? That's confounding.
You also forgot to note that the democrats will use their super-secret-mind-emptying-ray-gun (aka the palinator) to make palin, who usually comes across as a knowledgeable and capable vp candidate, seem like an ignorant simpleton. That is the only logical explanation.
Should we wait to hear the questions and answers before deciding whether Palin has an excuse?
Is the current "uproar" more likely to make the moderator tougher or easier on Palin?
Ron Mexico, I have no comment on your comment, but I love your screen name.
In fairness, I do think Smokey has a point her. Ifill herself played the race card on this issue when her conflict was brought up. She said:
“Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?” Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”
So Ifill herself is playing the race card. I think it's fair to assume that if McCain bumped her initially, that criticism would've arisen.
We already have evidence of her feelings towards Obama. It's the Essence article she wrote. Read it but not if you have diabetes. You'll die!
Thanks for playing the race card though.
Don't get me wrong, I don't care if she asks the questions. 99% of the possible replacements would be just as biased.
She should be grateful. She's on PBS, this is more press coverage than in her entire career. Now maybe more than her immediate family will buy the book.
First of all, I don't know the context of that quote -- I don't know what question she was answering when she said it, and that makes a difference. But again (and again, and again), let's concede for the sake of this argument that she went on television this morning and called John McCain a racist.
Smokey's point seems to be that Gwen Ifill was a set-up -- that even though she is clearly biased -- as biased as Oprah, as biased as Karl Rove, as biased as Sean Hannity -- that John McCain had no choice but to accept her as the debate moderator, because if he didn't, he would be called a racist.
Never mind the notion underpinning this argument -- that the bipartisan Debate Commission is biased as well -- otherwise why would they suggest her? Forget about that. Let's take the argument on its face.
So then logically, they could have picked Oprah too, right? Why didn't the Obama campaign/Debate Commission pick Oprah to moderate? After all, she's no less "in the tank for Obama" than Ifill. Plus, she's equally black, which means that McCain isn't allowed to object. Why didn't they pick Oprah?
For that matter, why didn't they pick Michelle Obama to moderate? If we listen to Smokey's logic, Michelle Obama is no less overtly biased in favor of Barack Obama than Gwen Ifill is, and she's also black, so therefore John McCain would have had to confirm her as well. I don't get it -- wouldn't that have been a smarter move by the Debate Commission/Obama campaign?
I know. I've ventured into absurdity. But I started with Smokey's premise. I'd argue I started in absurdity.
By the way, Iffil herself stated that she did not disclose the book to the Debate committee.
I agree with the poster above who said she will be about as impartial as any other journalist. But that's setting the bar rather low.
And here's where I'll take a couple breaths and nod gentlemanly in Smokey's direction. I'm not trying to personalize this. I think Smokey's argument here is silly, but I don't want to be uncivil. So yes -- I'm being absurd. Trying to make a point. I'll move on.
Well, the argument breaks down when you get to Oprah, which is where you tacitly introduce the premise that the image of impropriety is of no importance to the left. I would imagine Smokey would argue that you'd have to accept at least a stereotypical ivy-league elitist's sense of fair play.
Who on earth would be judging Ifill if she screwed the pooch on the debate and the election went to Obama?
Right. The rest of her guild who would have done the same thing and loved the result. Which is almost all of them.
She'd get bigger.
That there would be a diminishing market for her stuff wouldn't show up because the entire guild's market is shrinking.
I would agree with you, except that Smokey has made the argument here that Gwen Ifill doesn't even have the appearance of propriety -- that anyone with a brain and eyes would see that she is as partisan as Karl Rove, which you'd agree, is pretty partisan.
Someone in there is apparently comparing Palin to Churchill, asserting that they both "freeze up" from time to time.
That will be a useful talking point tomorrow.
Oh, okay, so isn't that alone then grounds to toss her of the moderator's chair?
I hope you e-mail the McCain campaign since they apparently don't know that this Ifill person is in the tank for Barry.
Ok, lets backup and try this again. The book is titled "The Age of Obama". No way this book makes as much money if Obama loses. She now has a financial stake in his winning. She is compromised. She needs to do the right thing and step down. Of course, she won't. The reasonable person may now conclude that she is not a person of honor.
Mary, we've been here before, several times over the last hour and a half. I've handed you this point. I'm not sure why you're stuck on this argument. I've agreed that Ifill has at minimum an appearance of a conflict. Let's move on, okay?
I've tried to move our conversation -- yours and mine -- over into a conversation about whether or not the McCain campaign knew about this before this week. I think it's reasonable to expect that they had every reason to know about it -- it was, after all, reported in both the liberal media and the fair and balanced media as far back as July -- before the McCain campaign agreed to have her moderate. Your argument has been that even though it the McCain campaign ought to have known about the book ahead of time, we can't prove that he knew, and therefore there's no reason to assume that he's playing expectations games here.
You and I have different takes on the same set of circumstances. It's a matter of opinion at this point -- you've got yours, I've got mine. But surely you realize at this point that the question of whether there's a conflict has, at least for the sake of this thread, been settled -- if it was ever contested in the first place?
While the Palin pick has destroyed my faith in the competence of the McCain campaign's vetting operation, I can't bring myself to believe that they're that inept.
Is that supposed to be a compelling argument?
bikeguy, I'm not sure if you're talking about me here, but since I've been rambling on like Joe Biden on a bender, I'll take the bait.
Can you point to where I or anyone else here has tried to "shift the blame"? I'm not trying to shift the blame one bit. There is an appearance of impropriety here. There may be actual impropriety here, but there's certainly the appearance. Clearly, Gwen Ifill's appearance as a debate moderator here gives fuel to your suspicions that the McCain campaign is fighting a rigged battle. She should step aside.
I'm not sure if it's possible for me to be more clear about that, and yet you and Mary and several others seem to be making the same argument over and over, long after it's been conceded. But conceding this doesn't in any way undercut my parallel argument that McCain wants Ifill to host this debate, because McCain wants a ready-made excuse if it goes poorly for his vice-presidential candidate. It's politics, and I think it's obvious to anyone willing to pay a little attention. If McCain really thought Ifill was going to rig this debate, he wouldn't want her to moderate. And if he didn't want her to moderate, he would have brought it up a month ago, when it would have been reasonable, logistically speaking, to replace her. The fact that he brought it up yesterday for the first time demonstrates, to me anyway, that he's playing games.
What about part A of this conversation is making it difficult for you to see part B of this conversation?
This is no different than a ref coming in to call a ball game when he has bet $10,000 on one team. No one would say, "well, maybe he can be fair anyone." they would say, "you are out of there!"
But then to use another judicial metaphor, finding a journalist who doens't have liberal bias is about as hard as finding a juror who never heard of the first OJ trial. So i have been persuaded to let this one slide on the theory that having been caught, Iffel might very well actually be super fair to prove to everyone she can't be bought.
Its counter-intuitive, but oddly persuasive to me.
I thought Drudge was the one that brought it to everybody's attention. Anybody have a timeline?
Ifill's upcoming book has been public knowledge for weeks—it was even in the September 2 version of her Wikipedia bio. It would have been in the first few Google hits on her name.
But it's not their ethical duty to *disclose* this information, it is Ifill's ethical duty.
If the McCain campaign has doubts about Ifill's impartiality, it has an ethical duty to raise those doubts as soon as possible, so there is time to get a replacement if needed.
Can anyone believe that they just learned about the book yesterday? First, it's been public knowledge for some time now. Second, planning for the debate wold surely include some effort to figure out what the moderator is likely to ask about, her attitudes, etc. So it's not credible that the book is news to the McCain campaign.
If I'm right, they behaved unethically in not raising the issue in a timely fashion, and then using it to try to discredit the moderator at the last minute.
That's a stretch. It is in their interest to do it, but if they don't, then tough luck. I don't see how ethics enter into the campaigns' actions until they begin to rely on decisions they forfeited.
It is Ifill's ethical duty to disclose to both debate parties any conflits.
Actually, he said:
People keep talking about the campaign being so distressed over it, and there's nothing to back that up. McCain himself said he has reservations, but that he's fine with it (and didn't address whether he knew about the book before now). Why don't you wait until the campaign blames the moderator for something before suggesting they're using her as a crutch?
Can anyone cite where McCain raised this issue -- at all?
From a process standpoint, it also sounds like some of you believe Gwen Ifill had no affirmative duty to tell the Commission about the book, that it was up to McCain to discover the problem and take action.
Is that the rule all candidates understand? "We are proposing the following list of candidates. Please conduct any research you see fit into possible financial conflicts of interest and present your findings to the Commission so we can consider if a proposed moderator should be eliminated."
I would think the burden is, first, on the moderator-designee to notify the commission of any potential issues, and next, on the commission itself to do due diligence. Why have a commission if it won't take that role.
With both of those systems failing, then the candidate him or herself is the next line of defense against such a conflict, but it also puts the candidate in politically disadvantageous position, calling his or her motives in question. As we've seen. The fact that the conservative blogs have made an issue of this has been spun into a dishonest attack on McCain for trying to "distract" America from Palin's lack of qualifications.
If Obama were put in the same position, his supporters would be screaming like stuck pigs. But in Obama-land, the shoe is never on the other foot.
The only sure thing in this is if her book were about McCain's campaign the howling would be unbearable.
I agree, now, with A.S. Ifill should mention the potential conflict at the outset of the show. Viewers could afterwards form their own conclusions.
Plouffe noted that Tom Brokow has been in the paper recently talking about “his communication with the McCain campaign and their friendship."
"I assume they’ll apply the same standard to Tom Brokaw," he said."
As expected, the matter cuts both ways. While we all agree that their is a conflict, and that Ifill has erred, the problem is that we can't do anything about it. It is the responsibility of the party who claims prejudice--the McCain campaign--which has the duty to protect themselves from that claimed prejudice. They have chosen not to do so. They have waived the conflict. You might call it "invited error", which cannot be complained about in the spin room. The McCain campaign has at the same time made comments on both sides of the issue in what appears to me an obvious attempt to get the debate delayed. I can certainly tell a stealth continuance request when I see it. That's what this is about; delaying the debate to get a new moderator. If Palin does poorly because Ifill asks hard questions (??), it is the campaign's fault.
Richard,
If you mean it's only unethical if they don't object at the time and then later complain, that's a fair point.
But, the quotes you provide, especialy the first one, do have a bit of a whine to them. McCain could have addressed what he apparently sees as a lack of fairness before now.
Whoever is whining about it, McCain's not at the top of the list.
Carry on.
"Dammit, this is all your fault! If you had done due diligence before you agreed to go out with me, you would have known about the two prior arrests for attempted rape, and this never woulda happened!"
The assumption that either campaign knows everything up to the minute is false. I've been elected to statewide office and believe me, there are things that come up after the election that you just wish you had known before the election. Facts that were public knowledge all along. In a fast moving, fluid situation, nobody on either side knows everything.
That's why the only ethical course of action by Ms Ifill was to disclose her conflict of interest to the vetting committee. But by doing so, she knew she would have been replaced. So she kept quiet about her lucrative book deal, hoping nobody would notice. She was wrong.
Gwen Ifill lacks character. This is where she was tested, and she failed. She has no professional ethics; she wanted both the money and the position, but they conflicted. So she tried to game the system, and got caught with her hand in the cookie jar.
Because Ms Ifill is African-American, she may last a little longer than Dan Rather. But people will never forget. She will never moderate a presidential or vice presidential debate again. Ever. Her credibility has been destroyed by her lack of character and hubris. Just like Dan Rather's. Where is Dan today?
And dr, you do seem like a nice enough guy, so I hope you're not a lawyer. Because if you resort to the same emotional insults in a courtroom, opposing counsel will rub your nose in the playground sand.
ˇ
Funny!! And so true.
They really believe the hoi polloi don't get it.