Just a quick personal word on Gwen Ifill as debate moderator and her possible bias on the debate. I appeared on The Newshour one night with her to discuss bankruptcy reform. I found her to be eminently fair and well-prepared. She understood the key issues and asked pointed questions for both myself and the other guest. Based solely on the broadcast I would not have been able to discern what her position was. But of all the interviews I've done with the media, I founder her to be one of the smartest and most even-handed interviewers that I've dealt with.
You can't necessarily extrapolate from my experience because she just may not have felt strongly about bankruptcy reform (how can that be!), but based on my experience with her, she seemed really smart, well-prepared, and fair.
Related Posts (on one page):
As Marc Ambinder noted, it's a bit disingenuous for Republicans to get upset about this, because the McCain campaign is actually pleased they have the Ifill bias excuse to fall back on if Palin underperforms (is that possible, even?).
As Marc Ambinder noted, it's a bit disingenuous for Republicans to get upset about this, because the McCain campaign is actually pleased they have the Ifill bias excuse to fall back on if Palin underperforms (is that possible, even?).
She should recuse herself.
The problem isn't whether she will be fair.
The problem is that because of here potential conflict of interest, we are left asking that in the first place.
I predict that tonight Ifill will do her usual excellent job, and if Palin does poorly there will be an attempt to keep this pre-emptive spin going, but it won't work.
Where have you been?
Everybody in the media these days has an agenda, or their owner does.
Ethics in the media? Give me a break.
Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we let the two campaigns look over the possible interviewers and come to some kind of agreement as to interviewers who, despite being obviously in the tank for the other guy, will likely be somewhat acceptable (based on their past work).
Oh, right.
Well, that's kind of the problem, isn't it? If Obama wins the election, the book will sell much better than if he doesn't. This would be a conflict of interest for an author even reporting on the election, let alone moderating a debate. (Not a problem for someone opinionating about the candidates, but then we don't expect pundits to be fair.)
Gwen Ifill stands to make money if Biden comes across better in the debate and Palin comes across worse. If I found out the camera operator had bet on one or the other candidate to win, I'd get another camera operator, for the same reason..
Ifill may be very capable of conducting herself professionally even if she has a strong preference for one of the candidates, but that's not the point. Having the media in the tank for one candidate is par for the course; having them moderate even when they have a strong financial interest in the outcome is a bridge too far.
RobertsAlito is a fair and impartial judge; does this mean that he shouldn't recuse himself from a case involving a company that he owns?Fixt.
The McCain camp knew about all of this when they agreed to the debate schedule. They just didn't realize at the time that they would be selecting a borderline incompetent to run for VP.
That's probably true, but I don't think it has any bearing on the issue. She will probably sell more books if Obama wins the election. That's a conflict if interest.
I think the premise of your analogy is unconvincing. This is not a criminal trial. The prosecution does not have to overcome the "reasonable doubt" standard. There is no litigant that is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
This is politics. Everyone has a bias and an agenda. The parties reached an agreement on moderators weeks ago, at which time her book deal was widely known. They are only calling foul now, (or yesterday), simply because they are priming the pump for a "liberal media bias" spin-game if and when Palin underperforms.
It couldn't be more simple.
If Sarah Palin can't "handle" the a hypothetically biased Gewn Ifill within the constraints of the debate format, God Almighty, she truly is a political bimbo. You can rest assured Mr. Putin would be tougher in a crunch.
I expect Palin to "win" this debate (her performance will exceed the general expectation of her, while Biden will do just the opposite), and then the usually meaningless VP debate can recede into history.
Even ignoring the evidence that this is in fact a pro-Obama book, this misses the point. Her thesis could be that Obama is the anti-Christ for all it matters. Either way her book is going to sell a lot more if he's elected than if he is not. This is a rank conflict, end of story.
Amazing! Where did you get your advance copy? May I borrow it?
When did the McCain/Pallin campaign explicitly state that Ifill has a conflict of interest and should step aside. . . but Ifill refused and the sponsoring debate commission said take it or leave it to McCain/Palin?
Can anyone point us to link?
Why do that, when there can be manufactured outrage about the book (which was on her Wikipedia bio by Sept. 2, and she has talked about to the Philadelphia Inquirer and Tavis Smiley going back to the spring and summer of this year) the day before the VP debate? Now it doesn't matter how Palin does; it's all meaningless because the moderator is "biased." There's nothing but upside for McCain in getting a moderator who can be accused of having a financial stake.
That goes nowhere...
First statement upon being introduced:
"Thanks, Gwen; it's a pleasure to be here this evening and I look forward to answering your questions and sparring with Senator Biden. And before I forget, congratulations on your upcoming book, The Age of Obama, which I understand is scheduled for release next inauguration day. I'm sure you're hopeful for great sales."
I think it has a clause saying Ifill has to throw the debate for Biden.
These are the same people who endlessly ridiculed Hillary Clinton for whining about fairness/bias/sexism/etc.
And let's not forget that Palin piled on, scolding Clinton for complaining.....in her view, women should just buck up and take it. So let's see her do it.
Of course ethics applies, but ethical standards vary from profession to profession, and your analogy doesn't hold water.
Let me put this question to you:
Do you honestly believe the McCain campaign would have a different moderator than have Ifill whom they can easily pin bias on?
I doubt it. Don't be naive, this is politics works.
You see, it's a vast conspiracy. It's not real outrage, therefore we don't have to respond to it. The supposed "conflict of interest" is imaginary, it's just such a stretch. It's not like the moderator is about to publish a book about one of the candidates.
How anyone can think the Gwen Ifill can be a fair moderator under these circumbstances is beyond me. Yes we all have our biases. That Ifill was chosen to moderate this debate is a travesty.
Most ethical conflicts in a legal setting can be solved by disclosure and consent, which appears to be what happened here.
I would pay exorbitant sums to see this and a side-by-side reaction shot of Biden and Ifill.
I thought the whole point was she didn't directly report the book, just that the campaigns were supposed to have known by their own research. This doesn't indicate a good faith effort of disclosure on her part.
Don't believe me? Then I ask the McCain/Palin supporters on this thread to identify what she might do or say on this debate that would cause you to switch to the Obama/Biden ticket.
Secondly, as previously stated by others, if she does poorly, their defenders can always fall back on this "conflict of interest". Sure, it's plausible that someone with the reputation of Gwen Ifill would damage it to possibly increase the sales of a book not even published yet.
it's quite possible her book contract is a lump-sum.
I suppose it was all part of the "MSM" plan to have her moderate the 2004 VP debate with so much competence that the Republican members of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the McCain camp were lulled into choosing her again (in August when it was apparent that Obama was going to be the Democratic nominee) to moderate the 2008 VP debate. All so she can stick it to Palin.
Those media folk are pretty sneaky.
Remember that the Commission on Presidential Debates was established after the 1984 election season due to, in no small measure, Republican opposition to liberal bias on the part of the sponsors. (Bush and Dukakis cut a deal that allowed them to agree on a moderator; the idea was that by forcing such an agreement, the parties could eradicate bias on the part of the moderator.) LWV pulled out of the debate as a result, which just proved their liberal bias.
More broadly:
The problem of Ifill's bias is institutional. Jim Lehrer attempted to moderate the first debate by asking lots of follow-up questions; I thought it was well done, and that's going to be the format for tonight's debate. That necessarily involves snap judgments and might result in a "tougher" question getting directed at Palin than Biden, even if unintentionally (or, perhaps, a "tougher" question going to Biden than Palin). By itself, that is not necessarily proof of any particular "bias" by the moderator.
But the problem here goes to the appearance of impropriety. Ifill's objectivity and fairness has fairly been called into account, and her only substantive response has been to accuse people of racism who questioned her objectivity. (Not an inspiring response!) Bottom line is that Ifill is now in the position where she's going to be "damned if she does and damned if she doesn't." If she is perceived as being harsh on Biden or soft on Palin, she'll be accused of "bucking" to "conservative pressure." If she's harsh on Palin or light on Biden, she'll be accused of putting the fix in.
Some could say the same thing about Jim Lehrer (although I will note that few have criticized his questioning this time around), but because of Ifill's concrete, financial bias, it's going to have legs with her.
Here again, though, this is McCains fault for sleeping at the switch. Obama yelled and screamed and got both ABC and Fox News barred from hosting a debate because of alleged "bias." McCain should have insisted that either ABC or Fox News get a debate, which would have eliminated this problem.
But the media is prepared either way -- if Palin does well, it will be dismissed as an insignificant VP debate. If she falters, tonight's debate will vie with Gettysburg as one of the major turning points of our history.
Um, wasn't the argument that an Obama win translates into more books with "Obama" in the title sold?
My response is on the line of ejo's just maybe put a little more gently. I was not aware of any articles or books that Ifill wrote in 04 about Kerry. The part that really bothers me is that Ifill is so tone deaf (and that of the MSM is general) that she thinks that she can act as a partisan journalistic player one hand and then act as a non-partisan player on the other. She should have recused herself, or the comission should have balanced her with a decidedly partisan player from the right like Hugh Hewitt.
McCain's real problem is he never invited Ifill over to his house for a BBQ and to swing on the tire swing. She's not really part of his "base."
Is this the official line (link?), or just your projection on people you think are your opponents?
You weren't facing a black presidential candidate about whom Ifill had written a fawning puff piece in Essence, were you Todd? Didn't think so.
Ethics? We don't need no stinkin' ethics round here. Liberals get a lifetime exemption. Black liberals get an exemption plus special recurring bonuses. Move along now.
Agreed. And yet, McCain's campaign people had no problem agreeing to her selection. So you agree the McCain campaign is filled with incompetents. And those are the same people who would people the government should he be elected president. Doesn't look good for your side.
Sorry, "if you don't catch me, its your fault" is no defense from a charge of lack of ethics.
Say Palin does better. They win.
Say Biden does better. They can cry foul play, and garner sympathy from voters about the biases moderator. They win.
Win-win.
With any other moderator, Palin would have to win on merit.
Not sure how you are doing after the last 8 years, but ~70% of Americans would disagree.
In order to deny them this pathetic out, Ifill should have recused herself. Which is more important, her moderation of a debate or the crowning of Obama? There can be only one answer to that question...
Really? Please explain then these people who simultaneously call Bush incompetent in all things and then decry that he has Brutally Oppressed them.
You don't have to be competent to oppress people. Check out Zimbabwe. Of course I have no idea what any of this has to do with Ifill being a secret Muslim.
Pro-Ifill: The McCain campaign agreed, knew about it ahead of time, and probably calculated that they could use this to their advantage, so stop the crocodile tears.
Anti-Ifill: It's all about ethics and conflict-of-interest professional standards. Ifill should admit she can't be objective even if the McCain people wanted her.
And rightly so. The double-dealer is unethical, no matter who they are. The predictable accusations of "racism" only make Ms Ifill more odious.
The question isn't about whether the McCain camp should have known about Ifill's book deal; that's a red herring argument [and there has been no evidence presented that they knew beforehand].
The central ethical question is: Should Ifill have recused herself because of her upcoming book?
She didn't. She undoubtedly hoped it wouldn't be a big deal. She was wrong, and she will forevermore be tainted by her unethical decision. The internet never forgets.
You can not serve two masters. That's not just in the Bible, that is in every union contract. Gwen Ifill wanted the royalties, and she wanted to be a Moderator. By trying to pull a fast one, she has lost her credibility.
If so, doesn't the fact that the McCain campaign hasn't called for her to recuse herself evidence that they believe she will be fair?
If so, shouldn't that be satisfactory to McCain supporters and, therfore, be the end of the "controversy"?
Of course, no McCain supporter can answer question 2 with a straight face because this has nothing to do with actually seeking to ensure a fair debate.
Although most people would find it completely understandable if "the ref" in question was determined to hold a small number of shares in the opposing franchise.
Obviously, anyone who writes a book about black success in America must be pro-Obama, because black success is anathema to Republican ideals. To even discuss the matter is to show liberal bias.
Ayers? Alinksy?
I'm sure you don't like Alinsky's politics, but he was by no means a terrorist.
I'm OK with Ifill. I hope she announces her book deal at the beginning of the debate.
The invasion of Iraq, for example, has wittled our foreign credibility, turned off even long-time allies, and caused the price of gas to soar.
Combine that with the economic decline, and I'd say AQ is winning the war against "American Imperialism", as they see it.
Arkady:Umm, this is a question of Gwen Ifill's lack of ethics -- not political strategy from the VC peanut gallery.
What Ifill did was clearly unethical. She wanted lots of royalties from her book due out on inauguration day, and she wanted to be the debate Moderator.
When being vetted, if she had admitted the book deal, she would have simply been replaced; there are dozens of newsclones who can moderate as well, or better.
So, she deliberately didn't disclose her lucrative book deal. Gwen Ifill is unethical. QED.
Republicans would have a point if it was Keith Olbermann as moderator? But Gwen Ilfill??
So, robbing a bank with an unloaded gun is therefore 'laudable?'
I urge you to review the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:
SPJ: "Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived."
I urge you to review the American Society of Newspaper Editors Code of Ethics:
ASNE: "Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict."
In fact, I urge you to visit this PBS website that lists multiple Codes of Ethics that various news organizations have posted:
NYTimes: "...staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest...."
WaPo: "This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible."
etc.
So: how on earth does anyone conclude that Ifill is acting ethically? If you think there is no perception of a conflict of interest, you are not paying attention.
She's writing a book about race and politics, and put Obama's name in the subtitle to attract eyes. I don't see why this is terribly different than anyone writing a book about politics. Now maybe people writing political books shouldn't be moderating debates, but the idea that this is particularly egregious because "Obama" appears in the title seems a bit silly.
Folks, this is just the Republicans doing what they do best: Working the refs.
Todd's got it right. Only Judges are required to recuse themselves. The standard elsewhere is disclosure. Gwen should make a statement at the beginning of the debate and then we can jusge for ourselves whether she is impartial or not.
Willful ignorance is no way to participate in a thread. Since all choices derive from ethics (Spinoza), everybody uses them and there is no such thing as "unethical." You have to be able to articulate the ethical standards you desire, and saying that someone doesn't have ethics is tantamount to calling them psychotic, which is not the case with Ifill.
She really shouldn't try to hide these kinds of things.
Osama has done well under Bush
So: how on earth does anyone conclude that Ifill is acting ethically? If you think there is no perception of a conflict of interest, you are not paying attention.
Bias is inherent in all of us, so please to be listing your favorite "objective" moderators? Is anybody in the press even eligible under your standard?
Great! Can we make *her* vice-president?
Liberals might not be terrorists but terrorists would rather have them in office.
Which is why Osama, Oct. 2004, released a video intended to help Bush win the election.
Hey, white men have been voting disproportionately for Republicans in the past few elections. How unfair for the Dems to have white men moderate.
And by the way, win, lose, or draw, this is indeed a pretty meaningless VP debate.
I'll assume arguendo that Ifill was unethical. And that means what re the debate? What, in your opinion, follows from your argument as far as the debate goes?
You are basically saying: Gwen Ifill has justified because she was acting ethically. She was acting ethically because all behavioral choices involve ethics.
EH, with all due respect, aren't you the one begging the question?
You are basically saying: Gwen Ifill was justified because she was acting ethically. She was acting ethically because all behavioral choices involve ethics.
If they wanted to get ethical journalists, they would have gotten someone you never heard of writing for some insignificant newspaper with low circulation.
All they were trying to do was find well-known journalists that both campaigns could agree to. They did.
This is supposition.
Yes, we know that some Republicans have suggested that Ms. Ifill might not be unbiased because she's working on this book the with name of the Democratic Presidential candidate in the title. The are not claiming that she kept this information secret.
I don't know the vetting process for selecting a moderator for the debates and I'm not going to pretend that I do. Certainly Ifill's book was no secret. I suspect that prospective moderators are likely asked if they are working on books pertinent to the campaign.
This is supposition on my part.
I suspect (more supposition) that if Ifill had not disclosed that information, that the Republicans would be touting the fact. We would be hearing not about the book, but about how Ifill didn't let them know that she was working on it.
That's not what they're saying. So let's not make that supposition.
If we want to exclude all journalists who will be commenting on the campaign from moderating the debates, we won't have anyone left to moderate.
In my own case, I find it fascinating that there is a profession that prides itself on its impartiality, honesty, openness, and desire for the truth and facts in which one can:
1) Have a large financial interest in the outcome of a matter;
2) Fail to disclose that financial interest to the relevant people at the relevant time;
3) When called on the financial interest and the failure to disclose, act line it is a non-issue;
4) Have members of her profession back her up by saying that non-issue; and
5) Have members of her profession say that it was the responsibility of others to discover her potential conflicts of interest.
Can you think of another profession that would have such shameless audacity?
And thanks for not being one of the mindless partisans who give a total free pass to any kind of improper behavior that furthers their cause.
Obama may well win. But after it's all over, the folks who threw ethical considerations overboard might start to realize that the final result was irrespective of their own lack of principles.
Seriously everyone, think about it.
I knew Ifill would not be able to be fair.
Academics.
PC: Not sure how you are doing after the last 8 years, but ~70% of Americans would disagree.
---
Gee, this is sort of political science 101. I wasn't trying to be profound. Just think about it. If you're in Hitler's Germany and, say, a Jew or gay or gypsy, would you rather the Nazi hierarchy be efficient or inefficient? For any government with power over you, especially if you harbor libertarian sentiments, government incompetence is preferred for the same reason divided government is preferred: less (bad) things get done.
As to the last eight years, despite Bush's inability to speak coherently, despite his inability to define basic political concepts like "sovereignty" ["It's, like, well, when they're sovereign." if I recall], despite his lack of intellectual interest [of the 200 academic economists, including 3 Nobelists, who signed an open letter saying his bailout plan was a horrible idea, he responded to the effect that he doesn't care what people say on college campuses], he has not been particularly incompetent. He has competently used the power expansion given him by 9/11 and used it to create a much more powerful state, with powers unimaginable when he took office. It's not what he ran on, which makes him a liar; but it doesn't make him incompetent.
Means nothing re the debate. Just sayin'."
This thread is about nothing? Your posts are about nothing? Thanks.
Just bypass my posts if your reading comprehension is that bad. It will do wonders for your blood pressure.
On the moderating: Independent caught it. The moderator was subtly partisan. A clever hack, thinking about book royalties.
But Sarah Palin was real. Even Mrs. Smokey, a 17-year Middle School principal, said so. And she is totally non-political.
Is it really so difficult to say, "Someone in Ifill's position should be worried even about the appearance of impropriety, just as a politician should be -- like Caesar's wife, Ifill should strive to be above suspicion"?
I keep thinking that WF Buckley is rolling in his grave to see what the GOP is coming to. Instead of making arguments on the merits, make personal attacks. It's not his party anymore.
Apparently you don't understand that the issue in this case is not bias, it is conflict of interest. And, yes, I do believe there are members of the media who do not have a personal financial stake in the outcome of the election.
This is a very elementary point.
You are ignorant of the distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. The topic here is professional ethics, and you do not get to pick and choose professional ethics to suit your individual barometer. You must try to learn from this interchange and expand your knowledge of the world.
Arkady:
Ifill should have recused herself from the debate. Alternatively, she could have canceled her book deal -- but I wouldn't have, in her position. She acted unethically by agreeing to moderate this debate. She acted just as unethically as a referee who bet on a basketball game would. It is not that the referee is to be condemned a priori for biased calls, it is that one puts oneself into a situation with the appearance of impropriety.
In the case of the gambling referee who won't recuse himself, a basketball league can and should censure or penalize the ref after the fact. In Ifill's case, her journalistic employer, PBS, should censure her. I personally don't believe termination is called for, but a warning would be appropriate. Of course, I also believe PBS thinks it is chartered to lecture us about ethics without actually living up to them.
In fact I think Ifill is quite a competent moderator. Given the choices, she may have been more even-handed than most other journalists. But that has nothing to do with the fact that she acted unethically by deliberately putting herself in a position of conflict of interest.
Clear, unequivocal display of bias on Ifill's part to ask Palin a question she was not prepped for. Appalling the lengths the moderator went to in an effort to favor Biden and promote her own self-interest. Sarah took it in stride though, winking as she did and speaking directly to Joe six-pack.
I liked your post, but around here, it's very, very hard to do parody.
Poor showing, Ms. Ifill. The biggest failure, though, was the debate commission. Perhaps we should appoint them to CEO jobs on Wall Street?
That's easy. Religious leaders.