44 replies to this topic

[Incorrigible1]

Sho_Sho on Oct 2 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

I’m really starting to see that there is NO SUCH THING as “journalistic professionalism.” Reporters and Commentators forget their job is to REPORT not to preach.

You're correct about reporter's prime directive to remain objective and unbiased. Commentators have the prerogative to spin, to take sides in an issue.

Ms. Ifill should have recused herself as moderator due to her financial dog in the race. Her journalistic integrity is kaput.

BTW, she'll be wheelchair bound, tonite, due to a fall or mishap (seriously). I heard a radio commentator mention Palin should start the debate by requesting Ifill remain seated, and not "stand up, let the people see you.”

Edited by Incorrigible1, 02 October 2008 - 07:08 PM.

[MasterPo]

SoCrazes on Oct 2 2008, 07:19 AM, said:

I am almost certain that the post you're responding to is highly implying the Presidency.

Other than Jessie Jackson (who didn't have a ghost of chance of winning) no other black person has reasonably run for the office.

The point was there are many other very successful and prominent black people who have worked their way up the ranks of government.

I forgot to mention Dr. Condoleezza Rice or one of the former Surgeion Generals (forgot his name).

[Guardsman Bass]

Well, having seen the debate, I think it's fair to say that Ifill wasn't a partisan Democratic hack like some people were trying to describe her. She was actually quite boring, with only a few attempts to follow up on questions.

Not that this was a surprise to those of us who read the questions she asked in 2004 - as I said, someone could be a staunch Democrat and still be a good moderator, simply because being a staunch Democrat does not necessarily mean that you try to favor your party, specifically, in all instances.

[PhoenixDown]

I think she did just fine.

[Vampwitchenstein]

Guardsman Bass on Oct 2 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Well, having seen the debate, I think it's fair to say that Ifill wasn't a partisan Democratic hack like some people were trying to describe her. She was actually quite boring, with only a few attempts to follow up on questions.

Not that this was a surprise to those of us who read the questions she asked in 2004 - as I said, someone could be a staunch Democrat and still be a good moderator, simply because being a staunch Democrat does not necessarily mean that you try to favor your party, specifically, in all instances.

Agreed.

Sho_Sho on Oct 1 2008, 07:46 AM, said:

Is it just me, or do you find that Gwen Ifill may have a hard time being objective at the VP debate?

If she is writing a Pro Obama book, and the book will be released around the election date, and the success of that book will rise with Obama being elected, doesn’t it seem a little "special interest" for her to moderate the debate and be tougher on Palin than Biden?

I know if you are wanting Obama to win you will probably think No, she should be able to go ahead and moderate.
But for the sake of fairness on BOTH VP candidates It would really be a breath of fresh air to get an unbiased individual moderating the debates.

Every time I see an interview with Palin or McCain the interviewer doesn’t even hide their snideness towards them.

I can’t even watch t.v anymore without hearing McCain/Palin being slammed, so it would be nice to be able to watch the debate on a level playing field for once!

I hope seeing her masterful and completely unbiased, professional and intelligent moderation of said debate put your desperate fears to rest.
Seriously. We aren't picking classmates for dodgeball, it was a Vice Presidential debate. Apparently even Democrats can rise above the mud.
So;
"Biased much?"
Answer; No.

Edited by Blondigeist, 03 October 2008 - 05:10 AM.

[BlindMessiah]

She let Biden break one rule one time at the very end of the debate. I thought she was perfectly balanced though.

[Leonardo]

BlindMessiah on Oct 3 2008, 06:40 AM, said:

She let Biden break one rule one time at the very end of the debate. I thought she was perfectly balanced though.

If anything she favoured Palin slightly by allowing her to answer off topic quite a few times. Both candidates were guilty of this but, from what I saw Palin set the tone for this and commited the offence on more occasions.

[BlindMessiah]

Leonardo on Oct 3 2008, 08:28 AM, said:

If anything she favoured Palin slightly by allowing her to answer off topic quite a few times. Both candidates were guilty of this but, from what I saw Palin set the tone for this and commited the offence on more occasions.

They all do that though. When they finish the question they backtrack to further their strong points.

[Leonardo]

BlindMessiah on Oct 3 2008, 08:31 AM, said:

They all do that though. When they finish the question they backtrack to further their strong points.

I appreciate that, BM, and it's expected. What I am talking of are the instances when the actual question wasn't answered but there was an immediate "if I could just go back to...", or "I'd like instead to talk about...".

[Guardsman Bass]

BlindMessiah on Oct 3 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

They all do that though. When they finish the question they backtrack to further their strong points.

When they actually answer the question, that is. Biden did some diversion a couple of times, but Palin was particularly noticeable in terms of shifting off-course from actually answering questions.

That's what bothered me the most about Ifill - she was just a weak moderator. A stronger moderator would have pushed harder to get answers to questions, asking them again and again like Couric did with Palin in the interview, or Russert did with Hillary Clinton in a number of the Democratic Primary Debates.

[Lt_Ripley]

Blondigeist on Oct 3 2008, 01:09 AM, said:

Agreed.


I hope seeing her masterful and completely unbiased, professional and intelligent moderation of said debate put your desperate fears to rest.
Seriously. We aren't picking classmates for dodgeball, it was a Vice Presidential debate. Apparently even Democrats can rise above the mud.
So;
"Biased much?"
Answer; No.

correct. and the fact is that in July Ms. Ifll 's book was announced publicly and she was declared the moderator August 2nd. Plenty of time for anyone to make a stink about it.

she had moderated back in 2004 - did a fine job. remained neutral. as a good pro should.

as stated before I think she gave Palin too much leeway. off topic , missed questions.

[Sho_Sho]

I thought that her Dem views did not show through on the debate.

I am very happy with that. Now if the rest of them would take her lead, it would be wonderful!

[Aztec Warrior]

Guardsman Bass on Oct 2 2008, 11:44 PM, said:

Well, having seen the debate, I think it's fair to say that Ifill wasn't a partisan Democratic hack like some people were trying to describe her. She was actually quite boring, with only a few attempts to follow up on questions.

Not that this was a surprise to those of us who read the questions she asked in 2004 - as I said, someone could be a staunch Democrat and still be a good moderator, simply because being a staunch Democrat does not necessarily mean that you try to favor your party, specifically, in all instances.

That wasn't the point. If you were around in the late 1980,s is was all about "the appearance of improprietity."

Guardsman Bass on Oct 3 2008, 03:11 AM, said:

When they actually answer the question, that is. Biden did some diversion a couple of times, but Palin was particularly noticeable in terms of shifting off-course from actually answering questions.

That's what bothered me the most about Ifill - she was just a weak moderator. A stronger moderator would have pushed harder to get answers to questions, asking them again and again like Couric did with Palin in the interview, or Russert did with Hillary Clinton in a number of the Democratic Primary Debates.

That is why she should have stepped down. You just clarified the issue by agreeing she was a weak moderator and that was because of her book deal and not wanting to come across as partisian. Yes, many of the questions to both candidates should have been followed up much more forcefully.

[Guardsman Bass]

Aztec Warrior on Oct 3 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

That wasn't the point. If you were around in the late 1980,s is was all about "the appearance of improprietity."

I was rather young in the late 1980s - as in under age five. As for the "appearance of impropriety", well - unless you can show that she's been biased on partisan lines in the past, then the fact that she's writing a book about how Barack Obama is part of a new generation of black politicians is hardly a case of "impropriety".

Quote

That is why she should have stepped down. You just clarified the issue by agreeing she was a weak moderator and that was because of her book deal and not wanting to come across as partisian. Yes, many of the questions to both candidates should have been followed up much more forcefully.

I don't necessarily think it was because of her book deal - most moderators try to avoid coming across as partisan. Of course, I'll have to take a look at her moderation of the 2004 Vice Presidential Debate - I don't remember her being a real stickler for follow-up questions with Dick Cheney and John Edwards back then.

Edited by Guardsman Bass, 03 October 2008 - 03:36 PM.

[Incorrigible1]

Guardsman Bass on Oct 3 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

As for the "appearance of impropriety", well - unless you can show that she's been biased on partisan lines in the past, then the fact that she's writing a book about how Barack Obama is part of a new generation of black politicians is hardly a case of "impropriety".

The impropriety is that she didn't voluntarily disqualify herself from moderation of any of the debates, due to her considerable financial investment regarding her upcoming book. No one stated she would be biased in her moderation, you're imagining that, but it was a violation of her journalistic integrity for her not to have recused herself. That was the point, not any perception of biased moderation.