Posted 1 year, 1 month ago in 
Loading ...
The community needs to know about the ABC/Charles Gibson interview of Gov. Palin. Can Charles Gibson truly look the country in the eye and say, “I am not biased?”
As a registered Democrat now changing to Republican, I was truly disgusted with the interview with Gov. Palin on ABC on Sept. 11.
After watching numerous interviews given by Gibson, this was a true shocker. Gibson’s
intentional attempt to try and make Palin look foolishly uniformed and less than able to handle international affairs was insulting.
Gibson’s own bias by ignorance does not let him see the facts. His attempt to make Gov. Palin
look foolish and simply blind to the facts only turned against him, with the governor’s
straightforward, very-much-informed, able and ready answers to his questions during
the interview.
ABC should truly look at this and ask themselves, “Is he a subjective member of our association?” Sen. Obama’s recent comment, “You can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig” truly describes
Charles Gibson and the ABC network.
SAM BAGLEY
Palisade
35 Responses to “Gibson shows his bias in Palin interview”
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Unbelievable! Gibson is interviewing a candidate for vice-president that would have a higher than usual probability of inheriting the presidency–leader of the free world, it used to be called– and softball questions would have been more appropriate? Anybody paying any attention to the world at all would know what the Bush Doctine was and Palin obviously didn’t have a clue. The Bush Doctrine is front and center of a large part of our problems in the world and domestically, as well. Mr.Bagley has obviously been influenced by the McCain campaign manager’s demand that the press show deference to poor Sarah. Are we looking for cheer leader candidate for a high school or somebody who might be in line for the most important office in the world? If, in fact, Mr. Bagley was formerly a Democrat I would say he has made the right choice in switching parties. He’ll be much happier where all judgements are based on superficial appearances and illusion rather than solid thought for what’s best for our country.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 2:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My problem with the Gibson interview is that he did not ask Palin any really hard or pointed questions. Palin looked pretty foolish in her ignorance of what the softball questions even meant. If she had been truly grilled, she would have collapsed in a wet puddle of lipstick. I look forward to the debates where her ignorance of world affairs (and her hypocrisy on family issues) will be truly exposed by joe Biden.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 2:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class, John,
Have either of you considered that, now that Senator Obama is visiting, the Secret Service is on the prowl. In our internet community in particular. Angry people, take note. Chill.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 2:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Read the unedited transcript here: http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
It is not only Gibson who is bias, but ABC’s editors who cut key parts that would have shown Palin in a fuller, proper light.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whoa,
Was I watching the same interview as Sam? Were there two?
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
quoting dc: “Angry people, take note. Chill.”
I can do this, I think for a few days.
Unless …
Palin isn’t a “backyard dog breeder,” is she?
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OMG LOL
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting how it is that people see what they want to see. The first part released wasw about foreign policy, and specifically what is known as the “Bush Doctrine”, what has been a foundation of the current administration’s foreign policy since September 2002. Yet, when the interviewee was asked about it, she reacted like a ‘deer startled by headlights’. In was quite obvious that she had no idea what the interviewer was talking about. There was an attempted ‘bluff’ and an effort to change the subject, thereby that the individual has no knowledge of what constitutes foreign policy, or what are its various components. And this individual wants to be immediately in line to succeed John McCain if, perish the thought, something should happen to him.
Then, in an interview with another journalist, the ‘right wing’ talking mouth, Tucker Carlson, when attempting to make the same individual look like a ‘decisive individual’ in regards the military, he was asked to name one single decision made that had anything to do with military matters, in regards the Alaska National Guard. Again, he could not do so, but attempted to evade the direct question. He couldn’t name one single thing, because there were none.
John McCain himself, in a television interview, in no other place than Portland, Me. was asked what he believed his running mate brought to the table in area of national security, could not do so. He ‘hemmed and hawed’, trying to evade the question and change the subject, until he was cornered by the reporter and ‘bluttered’ out ‘oil’.
It seem to me that not only his running mate, but McCain himself, are trying to ‘bluster’ their way into the highest offices in the country. That worries me more than anything else. Seems to me that most American’s have suffered enough from the BS and ‘public relations’ nature of the current administration to last a lifetime. In my humble opinion, we don’t want another single day more of these same policies, even if the faces do change.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc stated: “Have either of you considered that, now that Senator Obama is visiting, the Secret Service is on the prowl. In our internet community in particular.”
Should I worry about the Secret Service? No, I won’t as I don’t make threats against anyone. If they want want to hear ‘hate’ speech, all they have to do is ‘tune in’ to local ‘right wing’ hate radio, and if that bores them, they might read just a few of the letters to local newspapers. (Which, I am quite sure they have by this time).
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 4:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: If they want want to hear ‘hate’ speech, all they have to do is ‘tune in’ to local ‘right wing’ hate radio, and if that bores them, they might read just a few of the letters to local newspapers. (Which, I am quite sure they have by this time).
You want to show me a list of “right wing” hate radio stations, and what is it they hate? And in saying what you did, are you also saying that there are no “left wings” that hate?
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 5:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52 “I look forward to the debates where her ignorance of world affairs (and her hypocrisy on family issues) will be truly exposed by joe Biden.”
Biden will not go near issues involving Palin’s family to two reasons:
1. He has to much class.
2. It would backfire on him big-time.
I look forward to the presidential candidate debates where Obama’s ignorance of world affairs will be truly exposed by McCain.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
I wasn’t thinking of you when I said it. I was thinking of some of our Obama haters in this town. I know of a couple of rednecks in the patch that have been predicting Obamas’ assassination. I am sure the Secret Service will be monitoring the local blogs and chat rooms for any chatter.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 8:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc, i am a redneck, and i’ve never predicted nor wished an assasination of anybody, much less the bammer….yeah, ss is gonna be combing each and every avenue, but i doubt there’s going to be an issue except for the neighbors that have to put up with the rigamarole that will come with this speach
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 9:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hitek,
I wasn’t talking about you. I don’t know you.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 9:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s curious to see some (RLaitres, in particular) associating “right wing” and “hate speech.” I’ll avoid the argument that Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, et. al., actually engage in “hate speech,” but I would like to pose a question: Using the criteria by which you define “hate speech,” is such speech non-existent on the left-wing? What would you call speech by such personalities on the left as Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin or Al Franken?
Just curious.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 10:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have never heard Michael Moore resort to hate speech of the kind that Limbaugh does daily. Moore points out embarrassing facts and inconsistencies in the right wing positions but he does not do it in the mean spirited way that I see with Hannity, Limbaugh and some others. He is having fun most of the time.
Posted September 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBX,
You want hate speech check out these examples from the Bill Moyers program of 9/12/08:
MICHAEL SAVAGE: “I’ll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it’s a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out. That’s what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they’re silent? They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot.’”
GLENN BECK:”I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out of him. Is this wrong?”
NEAL BOORTZ:”That wasn’t the cries of the downtrodden. That’s the cries of the useless, the worthless. New Orleans was a welfare city, a city of parasites, a city of people who could not, and had no desire to fend for themselves. You have a hurricane descending on them and they sit on their fat a$$es and wait for somebody else to come rescue them.”
NEAL BOORTZ:”It’s Ramadan and Muslims in your workplace might be offended if they see you eating at your desk. Why? I guess it’s because Muslims don’t eat during the day during Ramadan. They fast during the day and eat at night. Sorta like cockroaches.”
JIM QUINN: “The National Organization for “Whos”, they’re “Whos” for liberal politics in general, and they were whores for Bill Clinton in particular.”
These examples are from right wing AM disk jockeys.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, please understand that my question is not intended to defend the right-wing radio talkies. They say things that are calculated to be offensive, without a doubt. They are often rude, boorish and insensitive.
But what about Alec Baldwin’s saying he would stone Henry Hyde to death and kill “their wives and their children” (that phone message to his daughter is exempt, I suppose, because it’s not political?); or Michael Moore’s saying that hurricane Gustav hitting N.O. was proof there was a God because it interrupted the GOP convention? So even if we don’t call this “hate speech,” it’s still rude, boorish and insensitive, just like the right-wingers.
My point is that BOTH sides are guilty of the same thing (call it “hate speech” or not) and that is to cloud the true issues by slanted rhetoric and biased “reporting” and commentary. If one says that Limbaugh is spewing hate while Michael Moore, doing the same thing, is just “having fun,” doesn’t that just show bias?
While events and issues surrounding the campaign are presented with partisan prejudice (even in this forum), the real issues — a candidates’ platform — will continue to be clouded. That’s my point. I’m not trying nor am I looking for anyone else to defend the sainthood of certain commentators on the right or the left.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 9:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC - it’s true, both sides are guilty; we have awful things being said on the liberal’s side, as well;
But, to be fair, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, etc all engage in their hate speech 5 days a week, several hours a day.
After all, Savage wouldn’t even have an audience if he didn’t spew his bile in as vivious a manner as he does.
Alec Baldwin is an *actor* (although he did try, and fail, at an Air America show). A couple of nasty quotes in a few years time does not exactly equal hours of hate broadcast per day, now does it? For the ‘broadcasters’, hate speech is their bread-and-butter, the very nature of their business.
But, hair-splitting aside, your general point was correct, that neither side is completely blameless.
I’m no fan of Michael Moore, anyway; his films are now more about “look at me, the crusader” than they are about facts. The issues have taken a back seat to his ego now.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC,
The Bill Moyers show that I referenced explored what role right wing media personalities might have played in the recent shootings at the Tennesse Valley Unitarian church. The concern is that these over the air insults might provoke certain people to action.
Interestingly a case occurred yesterday in Anchorage that illustrate the problem. A group of local women organized a “Woman reject Palin” rally to be held on Saturday. A local right wing shock jock on his show said; “They’re a bunch of socialist maggots, that’s what I’m going to call them — socialist maggots, that’s what they are, a bunch of socialist baby-killing maggots,” and then he gave out the organizers cellphone numbers. They of course received threats and verbal abuse. The next day the DJ apologized and explained to his listeners that it was alright to express their opinions but not to make threats.
My point is that these radio talkies are going over the line, going beyond insults and partisan trash talk, they are inciting people to do bad things.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 11:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find most talk radio to be boring and self serving. Rush Limbaugh could be used for the definition of arrogance. He is fairly brave in his speech considering he has never served his country or been in harms way. I will listen to Mike Rosen when I am on that side of the hill. There is also a liberal talk radio station in Denver, same type of extremism, just on the other end of the political spectrum. They don’t make the radar because they don’t get anywhere close to the same ratings.
C52 “Moore points out embarrassing facts and inconsistencies in the right wing positions but he does not do it in the mean spirited way that I see with Hannity, Limbaugh and some others. He is having fun most of the time.”
I did watch the ambush interview Moore did with Charlton Heston. Heston was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s but was figured out what was going on and walked out of it. If it was not “mean spirited” I don’t know what is. Moore should stick to comedy. Canadian Bacon was a funny movie.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 12:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s a good point, Sullivan. I thought Moore’s “attack” on Heston was ridiculous, pointless showboating. He was an actor, for goodness sake, serving as the spokesperson for the NRA. He wasn’t a policy maker. It was a stupid, mean stunt.
But I can understand his picking on Mr. Heston. Wayne LaPierre may have had a different response.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 1:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now that you all have answered the question about “right wing” hate radio, (that I had originally asked, not XZBC), I’ll just add another name to the “left wing” hate list. Randi Rhodes. I find her to be one of the worst out there.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tell me about her Tasha, I have heard the name but nothing else.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Had to reboot, so now I can finish.
You can drop Neal Boortz from you right wing list. He is a libertarian and hates both right wing and left wing.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 2:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tasha:
NEAL BOORTZ:”That wasn’t the cries of the downtrodden. That’s the cries of the useless, the worthless. New Orleans was a welfare city, a city of parasites, a city of people who could not, and had no desire to fend for themselves. You have a hurricane descending on them and they sit on their fat a$$es and wait for somebody else to come rescue them.”
NEAL BOORTZ:”It’s Ramadan and Muslims in your workplace might be offended if they see you eating at your desk. Why? I guess it’s because Muslims don’t eat during the day during Ramadan. They fast during the day and eat at night. Sorta like cockroaches.”
Yeah. Definitely sounds like a middle-of-the-road kinda guy to me.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fair enough; Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. get more air time, and Michael Moore is an Oscar-winning propagandist. Obnoxious speech is indefensible whether on the left or the right if we want to be consistent. Boortz is to be admired for being fair . . . he hates everyone equally.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 3:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC:
I’ll grant you, Michael Moore is exactly as you say. We agree.
But Boortz, hating everyone equally? Baloney. His rants are Far Right-Wing, pure and simple. He only rants against the Right when they’re not ‘Right Enough” for him.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
meh…it isn’t about who’s more hateful, or who’s more popular…what it’s about is a stations’ right to air whom they want without governmental interference…i enjoyed limbaugh simply for the parodies while clinton was in office, but find him seriously lacking without a target in office…i thought tony snow was a very good speaker, and didn’t go too far to the right…i remember some extreme left talk show host somewhere back east when i was driving over the road that simply called anybody even remotely close to moderate a brain-stem, and found it amusing as all get out…kinda like a revers hannity, ya know?…just wish i could remember the name, cause tho i don’t agree with the ideologies, that dude was funny…as for boortz, he can be entertaining, but i have heard him attack both sides and parties, so i don’t really consider him anything more than a complaining entertainer
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 4:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
sorry, i just realized i posted this in the wrong spot
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In that we agree, hite-
No matter how hateful, mean-spirited, or twisted I think some of these ‘broadcasters’ are, they are absolutely, undeniably, and thankfully protected by the First Amendment; and any government interference or forced “fairness” is wrong through and through.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dammit, curmie…..we’re gonna set new standards if we keep agreeing with each other…
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 5:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Right, Curmudgeon, on Boortz. I was just cracking wise (or not) about Tasha’ comment # 25.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 5:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe in the First Amendment, hite - It’s the biggest, baddest weapon our forefathers gave us to stay free. That’s why it has to be protected, even for speech we disagree with. Especially for speech we disagree with.
Posted September 14th, 2008 at 5:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i agree wholeheartedly, curm…after all, free speach guarantees the exchange of ideas and ideals…it doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to becuase of too many close-minded individuals, but we can’t have everything, can we?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.