Was Ifill Fair and Balanced?
I thought so. What do readers think?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Was Ifill Fair and Balanced?
- Gwen Ifill:
- Does Ifill Have a Conflict of Interest?
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
This thread, however, is going to turn ugly very quickly.
She was fair and balanced to the point of invisibility.
Palin demonstrated she can navigate her way around a question to recite memorized talking points very effectively.
Yay Democracy.
She didn't really press either of them and let them both do their schtick. I would have liked to see her do that a bit more for both of the candidates. But she probably would have been destroyed in the aftermath if she had.
It sounds batter than a simple "I think that...NO". Credit though, she was better than I expected. Goes with my policy of making sure that my prof cam ALWAYS put my face with my name. Its subconscious. If they like me they give me the benefit of the doubt, if they don't like me they worry about their own bias. She had bias but(and it showed...some) worked to overcome it.
I haven't been on the Newshour like Todd Zywicki, but I, too, have never been able to figure out on which side of an issue she stands.
It's unfortunate that Ifill didn't explicitly disclose her book to the debate commission; it certainly lends an appearance of impropriety.
And to blame McCain for failing to catch it sooner is ascribing omnipotent powers to a presidential campaign — they're fallible like everyone else. There should be some expectation of a level playing field and a sense that each side (and their supporters) are behaving in good faith.
Or am I just dreaming?
But they should do two 60 minute debates. Both closings seemed rather tired, with awkward grammar.
Amen.
i mean "fair and balanced" not sexy ... er not saying that she is not sexy, either, i mean... i am not going there.
But like many other comments here, I have to say she let them go on without holding them accountable - several times they didn't answer her direct question, but went on with their rote talking points. Also, her time management was not spot on, since it appeared that Biden had the ball more than Palin did, but I don't think that was a problem for either side.
Yes.
Why? It seemed that Biden would have been better at the top of the ticket:)
It is a "cramdown" provision and is very common in other contexts in the bankruptcy code.
Basically, the theory is that, when in bankruptcy, the value of the debt is secured (in the case of a house, a mortgage), the amount above the value of the house will be treated as unsecured. So, if you declare bankruptcy with a house worth 100,000 and a mortgage of 200,000, upon discharge, you will have a mortgage of $100,000 and the mortgage holder will have a secured claim of $100,000 and an unsecured claim of $100,000.
I also think her questions were poorly worded and I am not sure that she really held any fire to the feet of either candidate. I also think her economy questions all sounded about the same.
I found it interesting that there wasn't really much domestic agenda stuff asked-nothing really on healthcare-other than the one that was more about taxes than healthcare, nothing really on education (although Palin brought up education) etc. I realize the financial crisis is big news but just seemed like there should have been more on the domestic agenda than that.
I give her an A in her attempts to be fair, but a C in general as a moderator-and mostly because she asked unfocused questions and left a lot off the table.
Seconded
I didn't mind that she stepped back out of the way and let them go without pressing in followups, though, because Jim Lehrer was so annoying when he did that the other night. Just give them a balanced opportunity to speak.
Are you really suggesting that she should have begun the debate with a comment about her book? What exactly should she have said?
Of course it has always been doctrine that we don't say what the trigger would be, leave them guessing, and I think Ifill hoped that Palin might be lured into espousing a "Palin Doctrine". Palin was a litte inartful with her answer but it was basically correct:
Of course a better answer would have been:
That is where her bias showed.
That is where I knew my searching for her bias had born fruit!
A groveling apology for her stupidity and amazingly unethical behavior for a classic case of a financial conflict of interest would've been a start. And then she should've introduced Jim Lehrer.
I did not notice this. But it may be because Biden's response, while obviously spun into his talking points, was at least tangentially related to the question/Palin's point. Several times Palin used phrases such as, "let me get back to the issue of energy," when I dont think energy had even been discussed yet.
Was I watching the same debate? Especially in the first half-hour, she struck me as very unpleasant. Too intrusive as well: She should have let them engage each other more, instead of making it her show.
Had I broken my leg recently, I would have been on pain killers. So I would have been a lot more . . . mellow.
Why is it unethical for a journalist, moderator, or anyone in that position to have a political preference? Contributing to a campaign is just evidence of that preference.
Let's be honest here: no one is, or could ever be, ethical if utter neutrality were the ethical standard. To me, it's unethical to pretend you have no political opinions and thus no bias. Ifill's "bias" has been disclosed and thoroughly publicized, so we were all able to evaluate the debate with that in mind. As Patent Lawyer noted, she knew she had to be fair if she didn't want to be crucified.
A true "conflict of interest" occurs when, for whatever reason, a person is incapable of being fair to other side. Lacking an opinion on a candidate is an unreasonable standard -- that every person in this country would conflict out is just one problem with it.
I didn't mind that she stepped back out of the way and let them go without pressing in followups, though, because Jim Lehrer was so annoying when he did that the other night. Just give them a balanced opportunity to speak.
Please, that's Couric's job. An electoral debate should require more than that.
If that is unfair then she simply shouldn't be standing there.
No questions about energy? And the only segue involving "energy" leads to ... global warming??
Nothing about abortion? Palin has famously decided to birth a child with Downs syndrome. Biden is a Catholic who is pro-Abortion and barred from Communion by over 33 dioceses.
Nothing about guns?
In fact little that shows Palin's strengths and many things that play to Biden's strengths. Add to this situations where Palin very obviously gets the bad side of the deal.
Quite obviously the next time CPD calls about a debate they need to be told to go "f**k" themselves.
To avoid that freshly discovered elephant in the room [the perception of bias] she was forced to let both candidates skate on their answers too often without calling them out. The public lost, but Ifill, the MSM and the Debate Org weren't publicly embarrassed.
Doesn't seem like much of a societal win, though.
Alligator:You do not understand.
Ms Ifill was tested ethically, and found wanting. She crossed a very clear line by attempting to hide the fact from the vetting committee that she has a major financial stake in the outcome of the election. Her softball treatment of Biden, letting him respond much more often than his opponent, clearly shows her bias and her utter lack of integrity.
She deliberately refused to mention her book deal because she craved being the debate moderator. Had she admitted that her puff-piece Obama book was due out on inauguration day, the committee would simply have found someone else to moderate the debate.
Gwen Ifill wanted her book royalties, and she also wanted to be the moderator. So she deliberately refused to disclose her book deal to the vetting committee. Ifill sold out her professional ethics, and she will never moderate another presidential/VP debate. The internet never forgets, and there are plenty of more ethical competitors nipping at her heels. Look what happened to Dan Rather. Where is he today?
As ed mentions above: No questions about energy? ...Nothing about abortion? Biden is a Catholic who is pro-Abortion and barred from Communion... Nothing about guns? ... little that shows Palin's strengths, and many things that play to Biden's strengths.
Gwen Ifill has proven herself to be a self-serving, partisan hack. She is biased. She discriminates. The media will not open itself to non-stop criticism by pretending she is neutral, when in fact she is partisan to the extent of trying to game the system to her personal financial advantage. She should enjoy her book royalties, and be satisfied with almost being a contender.
She should have disclosed her book in advance though. Journalists routinely rake other people over the coals for real or imaginary conflicts of interest, and this is a real conflict of interest.
.....
Palin very obviously gets the bad side of the deal."
I'm an Obama supporter and I wish Ifill had asked about the candidate's position on abortion and contraception (most forms of which, I believe, are also opposed by the Catholic Church).
A few people have noted she gave Biden several additional opportunities for rebuttal, but she also afforded Palin those as well (I don't have a specific count, but I didn't find it to be particularly stilted).
Ifill also nailed Biden a couple of times on some of his contradictory statements, and his claims about his voting record in the Senate.
Overall, I think Ms. Ifill did a pretty good job.
Really? Palin at least identified a disagreement with McCain (drilling in ANWR). Biden danced all around and wouldn't identify any differences with Obama -- leaving it to Palin to identify times that Biden disagreed with Obama during the Dem Primary Campaign.
Perhaps Ifill should have told Biden that he'd not identified any differences and re-asked the question. She didn't, but, the contrast with Palin was apparent.
Still, Biden easily exceeded expectations. He didn't ask Ifill to stand up.
Abortion and guns are for the birds. Thank you, Gwen Ifill, for not staging another trivial culture war issues debate and sticking to things that (a) matter and (b) the President has power to do something about.
Ever hear of the BATF? Presidents have a lot of impact upon guns. Esp. with there being, at best, a 5 - 4 Supreme Court majority that actually believes the 2nd Amendment means anything.
State Senator Obama did yeoman work fighting against the IL version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, something that is also a Federal Issue, and where he is vastly at odds with the American people.
So, if you're a hard-core lefty, you should be happy that she didn't bring up those issues, since Obama is on the wrong side of both of them.
Given that Heller was 5 - 4, and simply opened the door for a lot more litigation, any debate that doesn't have questions about guns is a debate where the moderators are cheating the American people of important information.
Since that important information would strongly help teh Republicans, it's no surprise that all the moderators are avoiding that question.
But if there was any unfairness, it wasn't glaring.
Yes she did let JB have the last word, but she didn't complain when Sarah decided to talk about a previous question. The problem wasn't Ifel, it was Palin. (Yes, I agree Ifel should have fessed uup about her book deal.)
What you are doing is equivalent to saying "well the judge has stock in company X, but he sure seemed neutral in the case of X v. Y"
This isn't the way journalistic ethics are supposed to work.
And for the record, I think Ifill did a fine job and seemed "Fair and Balanced."
There is no such doctrine, and there never has been. In general, everyone is quite aware that if they use or appear to be arming to use nuclear weapons against us, we will use ours against them either in retaliation or to pre-empt their attack. It has also been stated doctrine that we would use nuclear weapons to respond to attacks with biological or chemical weapons, and that our armed forces may respond with tactical nuclear weapons to the use of such weapons against our troops.
None of this is a secret. Not the American public, and certainly not to our enemies who are privy to as much information and likely more (in the case of the Soviets especially.) And it is not at all uncommon for American political figures to address the question of when we would or would not use nukes.
This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear strategy. You do not permit your enemy to wonder when you might use nukes, because he might use them first out of uncertainty and fear. You tell him exactly when you would use them, and you mean it when you say it.
IFILL: Governor, are you interested in defending Senator McCain's health care plan?
And ignoring the elephant on the stage (Ifill's love tome to "The One", due out Jan 20, 2009) was laughable. While she wasn't hopelessly in the tank for Obama, it was at least 1.5 to 1 on that stage last night.
yes and no. What you are describing is the cold war doctrine adopted when there were only 2 nuclear players worth talking about (from the US point of view). Well delineated triggers were part of good old MAD, however these days we are in an asymmetric nuclear environment where the MAD paradigm doesn't apply.
Would it be reasonable for the US to wipe NKorea off the face of the map if it looks like they might be preparing to take out L.A.? Sure, if the USSR had looked similarily threatening it made sense to attempt to wipe the USSR ou,t but how much damage can an all out NKorean nuclear attack do to the US and is it worth destroying the whole country over? Asymmetry has changed the equation and MAD is useless.
I don't believe there is a deliberate policy of not stating what will justify use of nuclear weapons by the US. I believe it is merely that there is no clear-cut consensus of what will justify using nuclear weapons against a nation which cannot destroy the US. If you are really interested in what the current US policy is you can look up the current Nuclear Defense Posture but it is under review, as has every US Nuclear Defense Posture since 1993, it will probably be outdated by the time you finish reading it. (Mild exaggeration but still an NDP while technically valid until a new one is approved is almost always being effectively supplanted by the new one as the review gets under way, who wants the responsibility for starting a nuclear war using outdated rules?)