Reply With Quote
You've GOT to be ing kidding me.
Thanks Aggie. Very interesting.
You've GOT to be ing kidding me.
OK, show how the editing created a substantial difference and how it put her in a negative light.
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 ing 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 en ies like CNN to off...
Go read the linked transcript. 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...
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 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.
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?).
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. , 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.
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 bull for you.
CBS didn't get into trouble, why should ABC?
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.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.
For the love of God, WHY would you make that edit? It gives your detractors the ammo they need. Why, why, why?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 can't believe my eyes.
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.
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.
ABC needs to come clean and air the unedited version so people can say what she really said. This is pathetic
Excellent article
http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheda...1241221234472/
ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire
By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Order reprints | Print Story | Email to a Friend | Post a Comment
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.
Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. 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. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by 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 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 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 of Arizona, owed their victories over Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary race and former New York Mayor 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 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 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 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
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:
I know Palin's scaring the out of you libs, but this is really getting pathetic.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.
Ahh, but you left out the edited part:
And that makes all the difference because, you know, they're our neighbors.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.
Last edited by Bartleby; 09-13-2008 at 01:52 PM.
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.
Yeah, she's a regular ing Henry Kissinger.
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 ing 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
