Gibson, ABC, Media Bias And Dishonesty

I know why the McCain campaign chose someone from a liberal news outlet for Palin’s first interview but I don’t understand why it chose Gibson. Fox news could not be first or there would be claims of softball questions. Gibson was perceived by the McCain campaign to be a tough but fair questioner. Before I go on, I have no problem with candidates being asked tough questions. I just expect ALL candidates to be asked the tough questions and I expect the process to be fair. It is obvious now that ABC News and Charles Gibson were not unbiased and they were not fair with respect to the Sarah Palin interview.

It has been widely reported that Gibson was condescending and that it appeared he was on a mission to trip up Palin or to destroy her. He failed in this but it is not because of lack of effort on his part and on the part of the Obama media ward at ABC. Before we get to that let us take a look at the idea of tough questions. I stated that it would have been nice to see Obama receive some tough questioning because despite his claim of having been vetted for 19 months (a claim libs are starting to repeat so as to keep pressure off The One) he has not been asked any tough questions. Folks like to claim that Obama has received the same treatment and that Palin should have nothing held back because she is a woman. I agree with half of that. She should receive no special treatment but Obama has never been treated that harshly, and not by Gibson. Let us compare:

The questions when Gibson interviewed Obama:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

The questions when Gibson interviewed Palin:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine (which has no distinct definition)
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

The questions and the points about them are from The Anchoress who indicates they originated at a Hillary Clinton supporter site.

So much for Obama getting tough questions or Gibson even pretending to be unbiased. As I stated, tough questions are OK when they are asked of everyone.

It is obvious just from the above that Gibson was on a mission from his puppet masters at the media wing of the Obama camp at ABC. ABC itself helped with the hatchet job as well. ABC edited the interview to make Palin appear extremely weak on foreign policy. Mark Levin has the transcript and has highlighted the answers left out or chopped up to show how ABC tried to make Palin look inept. Here is the entire transcript with the parts edited out highlighted:

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)


GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say “I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?”

PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I’m ready.

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I — will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

PALIN: I didn’t hesitate, no.

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

PALIN: I — I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.

So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that’s with the energy independence that I’ve been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I’m just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It’s that important. It’s that significant.

GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?

PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.

GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?

PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.

GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.

PALIN: Right.

GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.

PALIN: Right, right.

GIBSON: I’m talking about somebody who’s a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?

PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we’ve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody’s big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they’ve had opportunities to meet heads of state … these last couple of weeks … it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.

PALIN: Sure.

GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.

The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?

PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Sarah Palin on Russia:

We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:

GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?

PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, we’ve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn’t done any good. It hasn’t stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?

PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.

GIBSON: So if we wouldn’t second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.

PALIN: I don’t think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.

GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.

PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.

GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we’re able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

PALIN: His world view.

GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

PALIN: I agree that a president’s job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.

I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.

GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?

PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.

GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?

PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.

GIBSON: But, Governor, I’m asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.

PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Sarah Palin on God:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.

Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That, in my world view, is a grand — the grand plan.

GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?

PALIN: I don’t know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

When you read the transcript be sure to read it in its edited form and then add the lines that were edited out and read it again. The context changes and this is an important piece of information. If the content did not change they could claim they edited for time (to fit in the hour TV slot) but this is not the case. They edited for content. They deliberately changed the meaning of Palin’s answers and they deliberately presented her differently to the public than she presented herself to Gibson. Obama asked about McCain/Palin the other day and he wanted to know if they had any shame. Will Obama ask the same question about his puppets in the media.

And people have the gall to question what McCain puts in his ads.

Mike Seitzman from the Huffington Post put up a piece with the title Sarah Palin Naked. He basically says that anyone who liked the Palin interview is an idiot. He believes that the differences between parties is not in ideology but in brain power. Yes, we are all so stupid we did not recognize the chop job that Gibson and ABC did to the interview. The parts that were removed were significant to the interview. This was not the removal of 50 hmms, and uuhhs like you might have to do with an Obama interview, this is the removal of words to deliberately change the context of the interview and make it look as if she were giving canned answers or that she does not know much. This is not what real journalists do and it is not what an unbiased network should do. ABC and Gibson are in the tank for Obama and some liberal twit named Seitzman at HuffPo thinks we are all stupid. I don’t know Seitzman but I can promise him that many of us on the right have more brain power than he could ever hope for and that Palin has more in her little finger than he does in his body. But this is what we expect from the so called progressives at that rag of the hag.

It is not surprising that this hatchet job was done because the left is trying to take Palin out. The attacks from idiots in the entertainment business continue and the liberal media (but I am redundant) keeps doing everything to smash her from making up stories to outright lying. Take this sister in Chicago who supports brother Barry. She says that the media has forgotten that Obama is running against McCain and not Palin. If you ask me, Obama has forgotten that because he and his campaign have focused their attention on her. Sister Mary Mitchell also repeats some of the lies about Palin as well as distorting the truth. Basically, what Mary is saying is who is this white b**ch to come in here and ruin a brother’s party. She done stoled Barry’s mojo. Of course, Palin should be the laughingstock of feminism because she does not fit into the definition of feminism that Mary has. Or, as the libs like to put it, Palin is not qualified to be a feminist because she has not had an abortion.

Did you ever notice that Obama supporters keep telling us why Palin is not qualified but they can never quite tell us why it is that Obama is? They have to attack her record because his resume is paper thin. He can fit his major achievements on the inside of a matchbook cover…

Democrats are worried. Regardless of what some believe, there are Democrats who have knots in their stomachs because they think Obama is blowing it and it might cost them the presidency and seats on the down ticket races. There is fear and I can smell it.

Obama might change the course of the race and he might just win. We have him on the run right now but we still need to address the corruption and cheating that Democrats are certain to use at the polls in order to win.

Glenn Reynolds says candidates should take their own cameras and film the whole thing so that they can keep the media honest. Not a bad idea.

Gateway Pundit | UPI | Newsbusters

Big Dog

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

4 Responses to “Gibson, ABC, Media Bias And Dishonesty”

  1. Adam says:

    I think the difference in the interviews is clear. To the media Palin is a new, relatively unknown politician giving her first major interview.

    Gibson’s interview of Obama came after Obama had given dozens of major interviews to various media outlets over the last year covering all topics between experience and policy and after Obama and Clinton had debated a hundred times on national TV.

    Here are a couple of examples I found:

    On 60 minutes in Feb of this year, Steve Kroft asked Obama about his lack of executive experience.

    In March of this year ABC’s Terry Moran asked Obama about Rev Wright and that mess, a tricky situation for Obama to have to talk about.

    Gibson interviewed Obama in July after Obama had won a historic primary and thus the topic of the interview was the primary.

    I think you are simply wrong to shrug off the time frame of the interviews. Is Gibson required to re-ask questions that have already come up in the course of the primary? I don’t believe so. No previous interview of Palin had asked the questions he asked however.

    The cutting of the interview is another argument alltogether which I don’t know if I want to even step into. I’ll think about it and get back to you later maybe…

  2. Big Dog says:

    Any tough interviews of Obama have been sparse and they did not have the tone this one had. Remember, SNL did the skit about how Obama was being treated differently? There is a reason for that.

    When did Gibson have an in depth interview where he asked these kinds of questions?

    Obama was interviewed by O’Reilly and was treated with respect by the host. Obama stammered all over that and lied or changed positions which he was called on. But O’Reilly never treated him badly.

    You know how you can tell the agenda? A professional who was not biased or had no agenda would have started by saying I know you sent your son off to Iraq today, how are you holding up? You must be proud of him? Thanks for taking time out to do this. Let me start by asking….

    Gibson had an agenda and you have NEVER seen Obama subjected to that. He might have had a question here or there but not that kind of treatment. Don’t mind it, just be fair.

    Even Democrats are saying that this is the case…

  3. Big Dog says:

    As for clipping the video, it was deliberate and designed to hurt Palin and McCain. It is part of the MSM agenda to support Obama.

    Tell me again who is being dishonest this week…

  4. SpideyTerry says:

    Memo to ABC and other liberal media hacks – If you’re going to cut up an interview to make someone look bad, make sure no one gets a hold of the unedited version’s transcript.

    I supposed McCain supporters like myself should be thankful. Gibson and ABC’s rampant stupidity will probably help Palin with the base and undecideds.