Gibson Interviewing Palin

[Biernutz]

Remember the Repub's are now saying it was a trick question....:lmao:rollin


Not a trick question-Charlie just didn't know what he was asking. Charlie trusted his staff to give him a good question to ask. They didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That's all.

[florige]

Not a trick question-Charlie just didn't know what he was asking. Charlie trusted his staff to give him a good question to ask. They didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That's all.

When he asked her what she interpreted to be isn't that the same thing as asking her what it is?

[PixelPusher]

s1lf1I4eFTw

Will one of the board conservatives be kind enough to link up a Charles Krauthammer article excoriating John McCain for having too simple an explanation of the Bush Doctrine?

[Wild Cobra]

Will one of the board conservatives be kind enough to link up a Charles Krauthammer article excoriating John McCain for having too simple an explanation of the Bush Doctrine?

Why? I don't care too much for him. He's too liberal for me.

I agree, McCain did not give a good answer. Like I keep saying, there is no formally defined Bush Doctrine.

[baseline bum]

That would be ASSuming she only has sex once, and the sperm was 100% effective at finding an egg every time.

Ever take statistics? Consider how those numbers drop in effectiveness if she had sex 10 times. What about 25 times. What about 100 times.

Now if I remembered my statistics right, having sex 10 times at 86% drops the effectiveness to 22.13%. At 98% effective down to 81.71% effective. At 25 times, down to 2.3% and 60.35%.

Is my math wrong...

Anyone?

Your assumption is wrong. One of the rules of logic is that any argument (valid or not) based on false assumptions can be used to prove anything is true, which you have prominently displayed above.

Correct and consistent (i.e., every time) use of condoms gives about a 3% pregnancy rate for couples using them for an entire year. A year's worth of fucking between couples, not just one lay. Dumbass.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

[Wild Cobra]

Your assumption is wrong. One of the rules of logic is that any argument (valid or not) based on false assumptions can be used to prove anything is true, which you have prominently displayed above.

Correct and consistent (i.e., every time) use of condoms gives about a 3% pregnancy rate for couples using them for an entire year. A year's worth of fucking between couples, not just one lay. Dumbass.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/

Good article, but it doesn't point out the frequency that these people studied were having sex. Was it daily, once a week, once a month?

I will conceed that my number are most likely in error with this data considered. However, the point remains the same. Birth control is not 100% effective. She could have had sex only once, protected at that, and unlucky enough to get pregnant from the incident.

I find the idea that someone equates pregnacy to not using protection absolutely stupid.

[baseline bum]

Good article, but it doesn't point out the frequency that these people studied were having sex. Was it daily, once a week, once a month?

I will conceed that my number are most likely in error with this data considered. However, the point remains the same. Birth control is not 100% effective. She could have had sex only once, protected at that, and unlucky enough to get pregnant from the incident.

I find the idea that someone equates pregnacy to not using protection absolutely stupid.

I find it ridiculous that because something isn't 100% effective, it's worthless, which is exactly what abstinence education tries to teach. Seriously, make an effort to be something other than the conservative equivalent to _boutons.

[Wild Cobra]

I find it ridiculous that because something isn't 100% effective, it's worthless, which is exactly what abstinence education tries to teach. Seriously, make an effort to be something other than the conservative equivalent to _boutons.
The libtard in you is showing...

I never said they were worthless. All along, I was pointing out that becsuse she got pregnant, it does not mean she failed to use birth control. Please keep up.

I repeat myself:


Birth control is not 100% effective.

I find the idea that someone equates pregnacy to not using protection absolutely stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

My earlier exchange on the matter Bum:




Originally Posted by Propaganda Dan
Not much wiggle room there either...her daughter engages in unprotected pre-marital sex...
...the oldest son is an addict, and the spouse is a separatist....

Who said that who would know?

Didn't they teach you in school that abstinence is the only 100% surefire way not to get pregnant?

Every other birth control has a failure rate.

Now the son... That's a new on. Haven't heard that lie yet. It's also known that the husband is not a separatist. He belonged to the group that has some members who want to succeed from the union. That's about it.

By your method of association, Obama is a terrorist!

[Mr. Peabody]

The libtard in you is showing...

I never said they were worthless. All along, I was pointing out that becsuse she got pregnant, it does not mean she failed to use birth control. Please keep up.

I repeat myself:

Regarding your use of "libtard" in seemingly every other post lately - do you really want to be one of those posters? You do make valid points in many of your posts (I don't agree with them, but that's just our politics) and yet, you are approaching a gtown-like tenor.

[baseline bum]

The libtard in you is showing...

I never said they were worthless. All along, I was pointing out that becsuse she got pregnant, it does not mean she failed to use birth control. Please keep up.

I repeat myself:



I'll bet there are good factual statistics out there that show that unwanted pregnancies or more common with birth control than without!


It's pretty easy to infer you are against teaching condom use if you ever believed your quote above. Otherwise, why teach kids to use something that increases their chances of unwanted pregnancies?

It's highly likely she did not use birth control. There's an unlikely chance she could have used a condom improperly, which condom education would teach her to avoid. It's extremely unlikely the pregnancy happened though proper condom use.

[PixelPusher]

Regarding your use of "libtard" in seemingly every other post lately - do you really want to be one of those posters? You do make valid points in many of your posts (I don't agree with them, but that's just our politics) and yet, you are approaching a gtown-like tenor.

I find it a bit of an upgrade from "demon-rats". There's hope for WC yet.

[Wild Cobra]

It's pretty easy to infer you are against teaching condom use if you ever believed your quote above. Otherwise, why teach kids to use something that increases their chances of unwanted pregnancies?

No. I believe the best method to teach kids is:

1) Abstinance is the only 100% effective method against unwanted pregnancies.

2) Teach the range of effectiveness of various methods because we know that most kids will have sex.

3) Stress that it is better to use two methods of birth control rather than relying on one to increase effectivenes.

I could go on, but I think you get the point.



It's highly likely she did not use birth control. There's an unlikely chance she could have used a condom improperly, which condom education would teach her to avoid. It's extremely unlikely the pregnancy happened though proper condom use.

Statistically correct. However, facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts. Someone has to be the statistc that falls outside the standard deviation.

The assessment that she did not use birth control would be something to gamble on perhaps, but not an intellegent opinion to form as fact. In playing poker, if I have four of a kind, I will likely win the hand. However, I wouldn't bet my life on it.

[Mr. Peabody]

I find it a bit of an upgrade from "demon-rats". There's hope for WC yet.

I guess we shouldn't try to rush these things.:lol

[TheMadHatter]

Please, she got pregnant because she and her boyfriend fucked without using condoms or any birth control (which she is probably against since she's hardcore Christian). I know because I've been there before, nobody wants to put on a condom when they are in the heat of the moment.

[Mr. Peabody]

AUrqC1O5KB0

I don't think she knows what the word "efficiency" means. It sounds like someone told her to keep referencing "inefficiency" and she didn't understand. Also, when did Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid become government agencies? It doesn't sound like she has a fucking clue as to what Gibson is talking about.

[SpursFanFirst]

It's pretty easy to infer you are against teaching condom use if you ever believed your quote above. Otherwise, why teach kids to use something that increases their chances of unwanted pregnancies?

It's highly likely she did not use birth control. There's an unlikely chance she could have used a condom improperly, which condom education would teach her to avoid. It's extremely unlikely the pregnancy happened though proper condom use.

What if....she used the pill instead? And what if...she was on some sort of medication that kept the pill from working properly?
It happens. I have a friend that had the same thing happen to her. She and her husband weren't exactly looking to have kids at that point, and she wasn't aware that her meds would interfere with the pill.

I don't know the specifics of the Palin situation, but neither do any of you. I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there.

[SpursFanFirst]

Please, she got pregnant because she and her boyfriend fucked without using condoms or any birth control (which she is probably against since she's hardcore Christian). I know because I've been there before, nobody wants to put on a condom when they are in the heat of the moment.


:lol WHAT?!?!?

[toosmallshoes]

Why don't the interviewers ever ask the presidential hopefuls, "Why didn't you answer my question?" Like when Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience (of which she has NONE) she just started babbling about what America needs to do about the energy crisis. Gibson should have said, "So anyway, back to my question...."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I'm pretty sure I heard Palin use efficiency twice when she should have used inefficiency. She was just totally scripted and never answered any question directly other than she is against gun control.

I think its equally as partisan to deny she came across as someone who does not know much about the political scene today. And unless you're someone who's going to vote for McCain no matter what, that can have an impact.

[Bartleby]

She was just totally scripted and never answered any question directly other than she is against gun control.

I would argue that even that part was couched in generalities. The question was about a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which she didn't really address beyond the usual platitudes about being in a state with a strong hunting culture and the need for people to be able to defend themselves.

[DarrinS]

Did anyone else notice the pretty heavy-handed editing that went on in Gibson's interview of Palin? There were several questions where the tape seemed to be cut while Palin was still in mid-sentence. I know there were time constraints, it just seemed like a poor editing job and it would be interesting to see what ended up on the cutting room floor.

[DarrinS]

Why don't the interviewers ever ask the presidential hopefuls, "Why didn't you answer my question?" Like when Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience (of which she has NONE) she just started babbling about what America needs to do about the energy crisis. Gibson should have said, "So anyway, back to my question...."



What exactly is Obama's foreign policy experience? Besides his Magical Mystery Media Tour he took this year, what exactly are his credentials?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Did anyone else notice the pretty heavy-handed editing that went on in Gibson's interview of Palin? There were several questions where the tape seemed to be cut while Palin was still in mid-sentence. I know there were time constraints, it just seemed like a poor editing job and it would be interesting to see what ended up on the cutting room floor.

Ask and ye shall receive.

It's now coming out that her interview was heavily edited to make her look as bad as possible. And you libtards wonder why so many have a problem with the media.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview


A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website.

Full transcript here.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

Gibson and ABC owes her an apology, but then again that won't happen, then they'd have to admit they are a biased bunch of liberal assholes.

Reading through the transcript, it's clear she had much better answers on some of the questions than was portrayed with all the editing.

This is bullshit.

[Bartleby]

I agree that ideally they wouldn't have cut any of the interview, but it looks like most of what they cut was fairly superfluous and/or peripherally related to the question, at best.

Besides, I think it cuts both ways. Some of the responses that got left out may have contributed to the impression that she knew what she was talking about, but others may have reinforced the perception that she was floundering and rambling.

If they really wanted to put her in the worst possible light, they would have cut out some of the footage of her strolling through her high school and talking about winning the state championship. That was pure fluff, but lots of viewers eat that shit up.

[DarrinS]

Ask and ye shall receive.



Thanks Aggie. Very interesting.

[DarrinS]

I agree that ideally they wouldn't have cut any of the interview, but it looks like most of what they cut was fairly superfluous and/or peripherally related to the question, at best..


You've GOT to be fucking kidding me.

[Bartleby]

OK, show how the editing created a substantial difference and how it put her in a negative light.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I agree that ideally they wouldn't have cut any of the interview, but it looks like most of what they cut was fairly superfluous and/or peripherally related to the question, at best.
.

Superfluous? LMAO. They totally changed the context of several of her answers to paint her as some sort of holy war/religious war hawk.

Give me a fucking break.

And for a reporter to say 'this was your exact words', when it clearly wasn't, that's pretty pathetic, particularly when she called him on it and they edited out.

And people wonder why the McCain campaign has told news entities like CNN to fuck off...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

OK, show how the editing created a substantial difference and how it put her in a negative light.

Go read the linked transcript. Hell if you want, go just read the underlined, bolded portions (the parts that were edited out).


To name two, she was framed by the left as not knowing the Bush Doctrine, and then saying us being in Iraq was a holy war, when it's clear from her comments that were edited out by the kind people of ABC that she spoke much more clearly and eloquently to both of those topics, and even called Gibson on misrepresenting her quote.

But it's clear from your response you don't care what she really said...

[DarrinS]

OK, show how the editing created a substantial difference and how it put her in a negative light.



I think it was well explained on that website Aggie posted.




A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

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.

Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview

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.


We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be


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.


Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.


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.


That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country

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.


Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out

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.”


Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via skillful editing.

[Bartleby]

I did read it, but I didn't see much eloquence or meaningful elaboration in the edited portions.

[DarrinS]

I did read it, but I didn't see much eloquence or meaningful elaboration in the edited portions.


If that happened to Obamessiah, you'd be mass spamming ABC news.

I'm sure a lot of interviews are edited, especially if the parts cut are just fluff or redundant. But these edits change the entire complexion of the interview. I think this will possibly turn into a bigger story (could ABC get in trouble?).

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I just asked this question on Twitter and have seen some of the media people I follow echo this thought.

In this day and age, with an interview as important and sought as Gov. Sarah Palin, why wouldn't you make available the unedited video, transcript available immediately after the interview has aired? You're going to have to edit to fill TV time, it's that simple. I've briefly looked at the transcript and some of the edits and can see where they shouldn't have dropped out, but the time argument is important and one that has to be taken into account. Hell, they had to do it over multiple shows on multiple days.

Regardless, my question stands: Why, why, why?

[DarrinS]

I just asked this question on Twitter and have seen some of the media people I follow echo this thought.

In this day and age, with an interview as important and sought as Gov. Sarah Palin, why wouldn't you make available the unedited video, transcript available immediately after the interview has aired? You're going to have to edit to fill TV time, it's that simple. I've briefly looked at the transcript and some of the edits and can see where they shouldn't have dropped out, but the time argument is important and one that has to be taken into account. Hell, they had to do it over multiple shows on multiple days.

Regardless, my question stands: Why, why, why?



Again, I think it's ok to edit for TV, but the edits shouldn't change the meaning of the responses. The stakes are too high.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I just asked this question on Twitter and have seen some of the media people I follow echo this thought.

In this day and age, with an interview as important and sought as Gov. Sarah Palin, why wouldn't you make available the unedited video, transcript available immediately after the interview has aired? You're going to have to edit to fill TV time, it's that simple. I've briefly looked at the transcript and some of the edits and can see where they shouldn't have dropped out, but the time argument is important and one that has to be taken into account. Hell, they had to do it over multiple shows on multiple days.

Regardless, my question stands: Why, why, why?


Because it would make her look competent, and Team Obama can't have that. It's pretty clear from the unedited version that all the fears of the McCain campaign and those supporting it were confirmed by how ABC edited this interview.

But the full transcript will get put on page 20 of the paper, while Friday's headlines were Palin threatens war with Russia. Good old liberal media bullshit for you.

[Mr. Peabody]

If that happened to Obamessiah, you'd be mass spamming ABC news.

I'm sure a lot of interviews are edited, especially if the parts cut are just fluff or redundant. But these edits change the entire complexion of the interview. I think this will possibly turn into a bigger story (could ABC get in trouble?).

CBS didn't get into trouble, why should ABC?

EDIAsS9VXiM

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Again, I think it's ok to edit for TV, but the edits shouldn't change the meaning of the responses. The stakes are too high.

My point exactly.

One interviewing lesson taught to me when I was coming up that's always stuck with me (and almost always benefited my stories and my rapport with interviewees) has been this: If you realize your interviewee says something that could be seen as inflammatory, etc., give them the chance to explain their position further. Ask a strong follow-up that will confirm what you just heard and allow for further explanation.

Most subjects will take the opportunity to clarify their thoughts (not change, but clairify), which always makes for a better interview. If what they said causes negative reactions, the interviewer has the fallback of the clarification question.

My thoughts on one of the Palin edits:



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.


When I watched that, my jaw dropped.



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.


For the love of God, WHY would you make that edit? It gives your detractors the ammo they need. Why, why, why?

[2centsworth]

I think it was well explained on that website Aggie posted.

wow.

[2centsworth]

My point exactly.

One interviewing lesson taught to me when I was coming up that's always stuck with me (and almost always benefited my stories and my rapport with interviewees) has been this: If you realize your interviewee says something that could be seen as inflammatory, etc., give them the chance to explain their position further. Ask a strong follow-up that will confirm what you just heard and allow for further explanation.

Most subjects will take the opportunity to clarify their thoughts (not change, but clairify), which always makes for a better interview. If what they said causes negative reactions, the interviewer has the fallback of the clarification question.

My thoughts on one of the Palin edits:



When I watched that, my jaw dropped.



For the love of God, WHY would you make that edit? It gives your detractors the ammo they need. Why, why, why?

I can't believe my eyes.

[SpursFanFirst]

I cannot even believe it, but I missed 20/20 last night. I've been waiting for this interview all week...started a thread on in...been in this thread numerous times...
And then remembered it at 11 last night. :bang

But I went back and read the partial transcript that DarrinS provided (Aggie gave the link), and it makes me ill.

I've enjoyed watching Charles Gibson. I thought he was exactly what ABC needed after Jennings' death.
But after reading the comments and the transcript of the interview, I doubt I'll ever watch him again.

Sure, he wasn't the one actually doing the editing, but as a journalist, he certainly had input. He allowed this to happen. That's embarrassing.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I can't believe my eyes.

What?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ABC needs to come clean and air the unedited version so people can say what she really said. This is pathetic :td

[2centsworth]

Excellent article

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/




ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire


By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM


Order reprints (http://license.icopyright.net/3.5981?icx_id=81241221234472) | Print Story (javascript: storyDo('print');) | Email to a Friend | Post a Comment (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/#comments)


WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (http://www.upi.com/topic/Sarah_Palin/)'s first TV interview since becoming the Republican (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/#) vice presidential nominee.
Charles Gibson (http://www.upi.com/topic/Charles_Gibson/) of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos (http://www.upi.com/topic/George_Stephanopoulos/) used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (http://www.upi.com/topic/Barack_Obama/) of Illinois on Sunday night.
Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.
By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/#). Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln (http://www.upi.com/topic/Abraham_Lincoln/).
Palin also expressed her support for Georgia and Ukraine joining the U.S.-led NATO alliance. That statement was predictable and consistent with the current policy of the Bush administration. The policy has dangerously raised tensions with Russia, but Palin is hardly alone in the conservative/Republican consensus in expressing her support for it.
Palin's assessment of foreign policy was competent and not embarrassing. Although she initially exhibited ignorance of the Bush Doctrine on pre-emptive strikes that has been a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she recovered quickly and then made the case clearly. Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.
The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience (http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/#) running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden (http://www.upi.com/topic/Joe_Biden/) of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.
Gibson's aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The focus on Palin's faith and family, as well as the controversy over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment in Virginia earlier this week, confirmed the swift demise of civility in the 2008 presidential campaign. This is especially ironic, as both Obama and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain (http://www.upi.com/topic/John_McCain/) of Arizona, owed their victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton (http://www.upi.com/topic/Hillary_Clinton/) of New York in the Democratic primary race and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (http://www.upi.com/topic/Rudy_Giuliani/) in the GOP one to their perceived inclusive tolerance, uplift and vision compared with their main opponents.
In the long sweep of U.S. political history, the worst dirt that has been thrown at either of the presidential candidates pales compared with the claims that Thomas Jefferson (http://www.upi.com/topic/Thomas_Jefferson/) had fathered a child by a black slave in the 1800 campaign -- the newspaper editor who published the accusations eventually was found dead floating in a canal -- or the false claims by Republicans in the 1944 campaign that President Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://www.upi.com/topic/Franklin_D._Roosevelt/) was senile. FDR by that point was indeed a dying man, though he did not know it, but he was mentally as sharp as ever.
The context of the increasingly desperate -- and ugly -- attacks on Palin and her alleged lack of experience is that the Obama bandwagon, which swept all before it from the Iowa caucuses through the end of June, is now stalling badly and, even more worrying for the Democrats, the malaise may be spreading to the congressional races.
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has the Democrats only 3 points up on the Republicans on the question of which party people would vote for today in their congressional district.
Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?
Whatever her inexperience and other shortcomings, Palin did not fall into that trap in her ABC interview. At no point did she appear fearful or threatening. Gibson's aggressive questioning on her religion and her son's coming military service in Iraq, by contrast, runs the risks for the Democrats of strengthening support for Palin among working-class, married women, especially those with husbands or sons serving in the military.
The pattern of previous presidential election interviews and debates has always been that individuals who come across as intellectually superior, arrogant and condescending forfeit support that goes to their perceived victims. This dynamic played a crucial role in propelling George W. Bush (http://www.upi.com/topic/George_Bush/) into the White House eight years ago. It remains to be seen if Gibson's perceived arrogance and condescension will give Palin another boost. It certainly didn't help the Democrats that ABC's chief political correspondent, Stephanopoulos, who had rushed to Obama's aid only four days before, was wheeled on to discuss her interview with Gibson as soon as it was concluded.
Liberal Democrats predictably will cite the interview as evidence that Palin is not prepared for the vice presidency. Republicans will equally predictably cite it as evidence that she is. How centrist voters will react to it remains to be seen. One thing is clear: This isn't a transformational election on either side. Whoever wins, the ugly old cultural and political divisions in America remain -- and they are deeper than ever

[TheMadHatter]

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.

You can't edit this kind of stupidity. The fact remains she is still dumb and inexperienced on a whole host of issues that she will need to know about if she gets elected VP.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

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.

You can't edit this kind of stupidity. The fact remains she is still dumb and inexperienced on a whole host of issues that she will need to know about if she gets elected VP.


It wasn't stupid, only if you're a liberal dumbass and look over the rest of her reply:


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.

I know Palin's scaring the shit out of you libs, but this is really getting pathetic.

[Bartleby]

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.

You can't edit this kind of stupidity. The fact remains she is still dumb and inexperienced on a whole host of issues that she will need to know about if she gets elected VP.

Ahh, but you left out the edited part:


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.

And that makes all the difference because, you know, they're our neighbors.

[DarrinS]

Ahh, but you left out the edited part:



And that makes all the difference because, you know, they're our neighbors.


Man Bartles, you should get an intern job at ABC.


You left this part out



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.

[Bartleby]

Yeah, she's a regular fucking Henry Kissinger.

[TheMadHatter]

You guys crack me up. He asked here a very specific question about how being in Alaska gives her insight into Russia and she responded by saying that she can see Russia from Alaska.

She's a fucking robot doll that is merely reciting talking points on key words she hears. If you think there is some deeper intelligence in this being I fear for you.

[mogrovejo]

ABC has only one thing to do: release an unedited version of the interview. Why don't they do that? Is there any good reason for not doing that?

[DarrinS]

You guys crack me up. He asked here a very specific question about how being in Alaska gives her insight into Russia and she responded by saying that she can see Russia from Alaska.


So, that's ALL she said, right?

[TheMadHatter]

That's what she said in response to his direct question yes.

What you are trying to do is pull out answers from other questions and use them as her answer to this direct question which is disingenuous.

[TheMadHatter]

The whole interview made me feel like she was a puppet reciting the same old lines over and over again. Reading the whole transcript didn't change that.

[Findog]

Yeah, she's a regular fucking Henry Kissinger.


I love that quote about how we can't have a Cold War on Russia, but then she goes on to say that we should pressure them diplomatically and use economic sanctions. What the hell does she think a Cold War is?

[Findog]

The whole interview made me feel like she was a puppet reciting the same old lines over and over again. Reading the whole transcript didn't change that.

She is nothing but political viagra to this guy's campaign. About as intense and as long-lasting. Romney would've at least flipped Michigan to McCain and made this really hard for Obama. What states is she going to flip? What undecideds are going to feel good about her being so close to the Presidency?

[ploto]

There is no clear definition. Yes, it is primarily about preempting war and attacks on our soverngty. However, since it is a term rather than formal policy, and the fact there are several elements to it. You can agree with parts of it and disagree with others. Worse yet, different people interpret it quite differently since it isn't a written policy.

Her question to get more specific was the intelligent, right thing to do.

You realize when he asked her what it was, she said Bush's VIEW ON the WORLD. She had no clue. She did not even say it is his view on the use of the military- or his view on anything even remotely related to what it is.

[2centsworth]

You realize when he asked her what it was, she said Bush's VIEW ON the WORLD. She had no clue. She did not even say it is his view on the use of the military- or his view on anything even remotely related to what it is.

the points that were made in this thread is that the Bush Doctrine means a lot of different things. For an outsider like Palin asking if Charlie meant Bush' worldview is reasonable. Charlie's definition was code that everyone readily admits she didn't guess.

[TheMadHatter]

She's looked like a puppet on a string.

Anyone who thought otherwise is an idiot. I'm sorry, if you really thought she looked presidential or experienced you are an idiot.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

ROFL
AHF your unyielding defense of Palin is some of the best shit to read on this forum in months.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

ROFL
AHF your unyielding defense of Palin is some of the best shit to read on this forum in months.

Someone's got to... beats the hell out of all the liberal slander on here...

[Findog]

I can't believe people are defending her horrible performance. That said, Dems need to get off of her and get back to talking about the issues.

[2centsworth]

She's looked like a puppet on a string.

Anyone who thought otherwise is an idiot. I'm sorry, if you really thought she looked presidential or experienced you are an idiot.

trying to debate people by calling them idiots makes you look real smart.:lol

soon you'll be ignored, but I'm sure you're probably use to that.

[smeagol]

ROFL
AHF your unyielding defense of Palin is some of the best shit to read on this forum in months.

That's because I haven't been doing some serious posting for a while :lol

[TheMadHatter]

trying to debate people by calling them idiots makes you look real smart.:lol

soon you'll be ignored, but I'm sure you're probably use to that.

You're still talking to me :lmao

I agree, I shouldn't call you idiots. That's rude. Mentally challenged is more appropriate.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Someone's got to... beats the hell out of all the liberal slander on here...


You even attack the legit liberal fact touting as actions worthy of burning at the stake. I'd be shocked if you did not have the word Aggie in your username. When I see that, I realize everything is going according to plan. But it's still hilarious.

[Lance]

Someone posted two weeks ago she was a huge mistake, who was that?