Palin's First Interview
Charles Gibson, who sat back in his chair and wriggled his foot impatiently, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee, but doesn't believe she merits admission.
I only saw the "internet version" shot from one camera... A very unflattering angle... Palin looking like she was on a witness stand, and Gibson looking like a prosecutor. It managed to pretty much eliminate all of her warmth, appeal, and sincerity...
If you saw the televised version and it was different, please comment.
....
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This humble blog page welcomes comments!
The Best of Malott's Blog
Lonely Street Productions
The Two Day Cat Conflict of 2006
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(324)
-
▼
September
(42)
- What Caused Our Economic Crisis?
- Roe vs. McCainThe Road Back to January 21st, 1973I...
- Paul Newman RIPHe was 5'9" tall... Or short. In my...
- Me and the Anti-ChristsThere is an Internet site n...
- Rev Manning on Bristol Palin
- Quote the Palin...Upon hearing that Barack Obama h...
- Former Christian Musician Ray Boltz Likes GuysI le...
- BornAliveTruth.org Gianna ad
- Obama attacks McCain
- The Weekend PalinI've never seen anything like thi...
- Biden Asks a Gentleman in a Wheelchair to Stand Up
- Bill Maher New Rules Sarah Palin
- Roseanne Displays Palin Derangement Syndrome
- Democrat House Ways and Means Chairman Calls Palen...
- The Daily Palin
- No title
- Charles Gibson's Interview DifferentialAll I Can S...
- From Canada's CBC and Heather MalickShe added noth...
- The Daily Palin
- The Daily Palin
- Asparagus and UrineI read over at Skyepuppy's that...
- Quote for the DayGo to the surgeon last, because h...
- Palin and Clinton on SNL
- Left-Wing EvangelicalsWhen Jessica Stollings learn...
- Why My Life Is Better Than Yours... My garden did ...
- Palin's First InterviewCharles Gibson, who sat bac...
- Malott's Blog Daily-Adopt-A-Cat for 9-12-08
- Lipstick Slurs"The difference between a hockey mom...
- Gov. Sarah Palin Biography Video
- Fort PatriotFortPatriot.com LLC was founded in 200...
- Bill Maher's Class on Display
- Freedom of Speech in the PulpitCHICAGO -- Declarin...
- A Golden Moment at the Convention
- McCain's Convention SpeechI finally watched the sp...
- I Talk to the Trees...
- Quote for the DaySeek immediate medical help if yo...
- America More Impressed Than The MediaObviously The...
- My Phone Call from the Republican National Committ...
- Piper Palin Grooming Her Little Brother Trig's Hair
- Another High Tech LynchingIf you're a white male ...
- Quote for the Day...And we need a President who do...
- Strong WomenI've never felt threatened by strong w...
-
▼
September
(42)
34 comments:
I watch the inquisition and couldn't help feeling angry. Gibson acted like a prosecutor questioning a criminal. It was pathetic and Gibson is an imbecile.
Janice,
I just heard Chris Wallace say that ABC News "did her no favors" in the way they edited the interview. He saw the entire interview on Nightline, and she across better.
His assessment: She did... OK. No major mistakes.
Palin will be on his show this Sunday.
Chris,
I stayed up to watch nightline because the clips I did see seemed to be cut off and I wanted to hear her entire answer. As it turns out, Lizzie Borden was in the editing room, chop-chop.
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Gibson was condescending and confrontational. BHO or Biden would never be treated like that.
On Fox and Friends - Chris Wallace said he was surprised that Gibson didn't at least start out with a couple friendly questions.
That's the consideration Gibson would have given Biden or Obama.
I know Palin is more "ready to lead" than Obama because she is right on the issues and he is wrong.
But is she ready for the Campaign? To the "Great Unwashed," appearances are everything. Being good in interviews does not make you a good president... But it does get you votes.
We'll see if her campaigning skills catch up to her political and leadership skills as the weeks wear on.
You're so right about appearances and the unwashed voters.
I pray she can lead this ticket to the WH because we can't afford BHO/Biden.
I watched and recorded the interview so my husband could see it. I'm not sure what you mean about an unattractive angle online, but I later saw a clip from the BBC that had a sideways one-cam view that was boring. ABC cameras, however, showed her full face close, Gibson's full face close, and then a pull-away side shot interspersed.
As to Gibson's interviewing style, gads! he is a serious journalist (which is why he is so highly respected and has stolen the ratings away from the other two network anchors-but I still also watch Brian Williams). I thought he was cordial but serious. The more easygoing interview was conducted the next day and shown tonight at her old high school.
Do you remember how the country (especially FOX!) skewered Katie Couric last election when she interviewed Pres. Bush? There were oodles of YouTube mimics of her giggly girlish silliness. Her lack of serious professionalism in place of a "gee-gosh nicey-nice" interview style was embarrassing and most of the nation thought so too. The consensus was that an interview of a presidential candidate is serious business. This election we got it. This election the McCain camp selected Charlie Gibson for that first interview, and I haven't heard a formal complaint from McCain about the outcome.
McCain's campaign didn't select Chris Wallace to conduct the first interview with Palin. Wallace's temperament has always seemed huffy and whiny to me, and his comments about Gibson bear out my opinion. His ego is hurt and he is quietly suffering the truth that he's not 1/4 the journalist that Charles Gibson is.
She did ok. She just didn't know policy deeper than she'd been coached on. She looked great, as usual, except she became decidedly more anxious as it became evident that he wasn't going to "help" her with her answers (why would a serious journalist do that). If she wants to play with the big boys and girls she has to learn to take it. And, btw, I think she can take it.
Finally, janice, what's with the referring to Obama by using his initials - to remind people that the H stands for Hussein? Indicting someone for an unfortunate name given to them by a parent is very small-minded of you, indeed.
Lydia,
So glad you're sticking with us!
I haven't watched the interview (I don't know my way around my TV very well, except for Project Runway on Bravo TV), but I've listened to the reactions to it on conservative talk radio.
You're right, and the radio hosts (especially Hugh Hewitt) agree with you that Gibson was right to ask the hard questions. There are two objections, however, that stand out:
1. Malott addressed this in his original post. Gibson's demeanor was antagonistic, exhibited through his toe-flapping, interruptions, and repetition of vaguely worded questions to make Palin look bad (in particular the "Bush Doctrine" question--Bush Doctrine has had at least half-a-dozen different meaning over the last 7 years).
2. Barack Obama, who is the Presidential candidate and not in the VP slot, has not been subjected to this kind of tough questioning, with or without the antagonistic attitude.
Clearly, Gibson is in the bag for Obama. McCain and Palin are not just campaigning against Obama and Biden, but they're campaigning against the mainstream media as well. It gets wearying watching it happen time after time.
Small minded of YOU lydia, to presume I used BHO's initials as to remind every one of his middle name. In fact I use BHO as a time/space saver. Small minded indeed on your part lydia.
Lydia,
Janice is the pro-Israel, anti-radical-Muslim member of our little group (along with Tsofah).
She is part Jewish, and has never been impressed with Obama's attitude toward Israel. She is a fine and fair-minded woman who I think you would love if she were your next-door neighbor.
Salt-of-the-earth stuff she is.
You people are crazy to think this lady is ready to lead! Bravo to Charlie Gibson for showing America just how stupid McShames VP choice really was. By the way do you people really buy into republican lies? Honestly, are you people really better off than you were 8 years ago? Say what you will about Clinton, but the country was alot better off then than it is now.
Charles Gibson completely and intentionally misrepresented Sarah Palin by clipping a partial quote from something that she had said in her church.
It's one of the oldest tricks there is if you want to make it sound like someone said something that they did not say. You use their actual words, but edit the quote so that it means something entirely different from what it means when you look at the entire quote.
You can see how Gibson did this by clicking here.
anonymous, I'm a hell of a lot safer than I was when clinton and monica occupied the oval office. And really, you aren't that stupid to believe all the DEMOCRAT lies, are you?
Do you really want to go there with the Lewensky thing? Sure it was wrong, it showed very poor judgement on Clinton's behalf however , I don't see what that had to do with job performance. Many many many of your republican "gods" have done the very same thing in their past including your boy McCain. As for the editing on ABC's Palin interview, they must be using John McCain style editing. Now you have to admit, it's pretty bad when Karl Rove says that McCain has gone to far with his "half truths". That is like getting shamed by the devil himself.
Hello everyone,
I decided to give you a break from my comments over the weekend. Since then, Malott, you wrote in a more recent post that the left and the right "serve different masters". I'm stunned by such a pompous, all-encompassing comment and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe you were being ironic, but somehow I think I'd be wrong in that assumption. Truly, with a worldview like that I am more worried than ever about this country. I don't think my peace-loving soul can take much more of your blog, and I mean that seriously.
Janice,
I just don't buy your initials-saving-space-time bit. If such savings really are a concern to you, please realize "Obama" with its five letters is shorter than "McCain" with its six letters, thus warranting an immediate use of his initials henceforth... :)
Skyepuppy,
You're nice. Regarding your comments,
1) I'll give you that the term Bush Doctrine isn't exactly dinnertime conversation - but a Republican VP candidate ought to have sprung into action with a full-course meal explanation (my opinion). And if Bush Doctrine has had that many different meanings over the last 7 years it's only indicative of the changing reasons for our being in Iraq. And, where I think Gibson conducted a strong interview, I will agree that his body language was smug. I hope he's studied the video and realizes this himself, as it was unnecessary. He didn't need to cook her goose, she already had the thing shot and dressed...
Interesting to read your comment that McCain/Palin are running against the other team as well as the mainstream media. I could really sense your frustration, even exhaustion, over that. I think you'll understand, then, when I tell you that that's the same way I felt about Obama going to Saddleback Church to be questioned by Warren in front of his throngs. It was one of the most bizarre and uncharacteristic events I think I've seen in a presidential campaign. At least Gibson is a credentialed journalist, which Warren certainly is not.
2)I agree with you. I hope that each of the four candidates are subjected to the same intensity of questions from the media for the duration of the campaign. Likewise, whoever wins must be grilled by the media and held accountable like never before. After Bush they have surely learned this lesson.
____
In general, the video clipping incident is not simply one of the oldest tricks, we can expect it to be done by both sides ad infinitum. Just knowing that we need to be diligent in searching out the entirety of any story makes us smarter voters, don't you think? Besides, what disturbs me about the video in her church is that her church is the kind of church itself, pentecostal. One commenter (don't remember who) said that an evangelical woman would have real doubts about a woman's role as VP and her duties to her own family, whereas a pentecostal woman would have no qualms because she'd believe the nomination was the work of God. What an ego!
Anonymous makes a good point that Karl Rove thinks the campaign is too dirty, a twist of irony if there ever was one. Also true is that it might be best not to bring up the Clinton-Lewinsky fiasco because it screams for a comparison to the fiascos perpetrated by right-wing leaders. As a Democrat woman I must say that one of the main reasons I wasn't a Hillary supporter was because she stayed with her husband after he embarrassed her in front of the entire world. She should have left him.
Lydia,
In the words of Bob Dylan:
"You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody."
I think most issues on the planet reduce down to good vs evil... And have you noticed that devout Christians generally line up on one side, and the Left lines up on the other side? We're almost always at odds.
A wise person considers why that is.
People on the Left aren't evil, of course, but you don't have to be evil to be mistaken or lost.
I don't think we're better than those on the Left... Trust me on that! But I think we're seeking after the right Master.
Once again, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and contributions.
Perhaps the very definition of irony:
Lydia says that "with a worldview like [Malott's] I am more worried than ever about this country," followed in the same post by the observation "[w]hat an ego!" with respect to Sarah Palin.
So, to paraphrase, Malott's worldview is dangerous and will lead this country in the wrong direction, but Lydia's worldview is what will lead this country to a bright shining future. No, certainly no ego there.
lydia, I didn't ask you to buy anything. You made a remark and assumed to know why I used BHO, and I told you the truth. Now you're willing to give Chris the benefit of doubt, why not me? You know nothing about me and I gave you the REAL reason why I used BHO.
Very well said, observer.
Lydia,
After Bush they have surely learned this lesson.
Unfortunately, the media has not learned this lesson. They apply it only toward conservatives and pull out the kid gloves for liberals. I hope they learn the lesson soon.
Thanks for your kind words.
Puppy,
Surely you remember the O'Reilly fiasco interview with Pres. Bush a couple of years ago... where Bill was asking questions as hard-hitting as, "You take opposing viewpoints seriously, don't you?" And someone else (Lydia?) has mentioned the Couric-Bush interview giggle-fest last year.
This is not a Liberal Mainstream Media issue. It's an issue of serious journalism vs. hackery. The fourth estate's purpose is to uncover meaningful "true facts" so that we can determine "truth" more rationally. They've been dropping that ball for years and years.
We need to demand more from our MSM journalists before they'll give it to us. Stop tuning in to tripe. Stop paying attention to whether or not someone wears a flag pin on their lapel. Stop caring how much Cindy McCain's dress cost or why McCain dumped his first wife.
And I've heard about this "liberal MSM" hooey for years, but my feeling is that they just want to give the public a story that will keep us tuning in to their programs, or reading their publications, a little bit more. It's not about attacking conservatives. It's about exposing the scandalous little hypocrisies and slip-ups that we beg them to tell us about. Those are the stories the public has been most interested in hearing -- witness the concentration on Bill Clinton's sex life in the 90s. They're all about making money, not meaningful journalism.
Skyepuppy: Unfortunately, the media has not learned this lesson. They apply it only toward conservatives and pull out the kid gloves for liberals.
Do you recall Hillary Clinton using this same excuse in the primaries? When the kid gloves were used on Obama and the tough questions were directed at her? Like I said, it's not a LMSM issue -- bringing down Hillary and raising up Obama was just a more interesting angle. And it's a sad excuse. Whoever is running for office should be ready at all times to give an answer to these tough questions. If they can't answer, they're not worthy of the office.
And Gibson, even though he's a better-than-mediocre journalist, has always exhibited smugness -- no matter the person he's interviewing.
A lot to get through here, and I'm just going to try to get it in one comment.
Malott: Janice is the pro-Israel, anti-radical-Muslim member of our little group
A clarification -- Janice is not just anti-radical-Muslim, but anti-Muslim. As she said in an earlier comment, "Personally, I believe islam is EVIL."
Malott: I know Palin is more "ready to lead" than Obama because she is right on the issues and he is wrong.
There is certainly a difference between being "right on the issues" and "being ready to lead." And I think we're all correct in worrying if Palin can lead this huge country -- hate to say it, but the actuarial odds are against JSM making it through even his first term.
Malott: Being good in interviews does not make you a good president... But it does get you votes.
True, but if you are a good thinker, and are considering leading an entire country, you need to have some answers. That's what the Executive Branch is for.
Anonymous: Say what you will about Clinton, but the country was alot better off then than it is now.
Yes, we were, but mostly through luck. However, Billy did have a good working relationship with the world leaders that might have helped over the past 7 years.
Amused: So, to paraphrase, Malott's worldview is dangerous and will lead this country in the wrong direction, but Lydia's worldview is what will lead this country to a bright shining future.
Paraphrasing another's thoughts is dangerous, and usually exposes the extremes of the person doing the paraphrasing. This wasn't a fair paraphrase of what Lydia said.
Malott: have you noticed that devout Christians generally line up on one side, and the Left lines up on the other side?
There you go with that concept of "devoutness". Since 90% of the country claims to be Christian, how can you claim that people on the Left can't also be devout in their Christianity? The math just doesn't add up.
There... that should just about cover it.
Okay Mojo, here is the full context of Lydia's comment: "I'm stunned by such a pompous, all-encompassing comment and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe you were being ironic, but somehow I think I'd be wrong in that assumption. Truly, with a worldview like that I am more worried than ever about this country."
If that doesn't mean that she believes Malott's worldview is wrong (and that her own is right - after all, if hers is a contrasting worldview and Malott's is wrong, her's must be right, or at least less wrong), what does it mean? And, of course, she then goes on to state that she is worried about this country's future because of Malott's worldview. If that doesn't mean she believes Malott's worldview is dangerous for this country and its future, what does it mean?
Therefore, other than my addition of adjectives like bright and shining, how did I unfairly paraphrase what Lydia said? If you know better than I what Lydia meant, please enlighten us. Or, perhaps, Lydia can tell us that either: 1) She believes her worldview is right and good for this country's future and Malott's is wrong and dangerous for this country's future (in which case my paraphrase is accurate), or 2) Malott's worldview is wrong, but so is hers, and both are dangerous for the country's future (which would be a silly thing for her to assert).
"Usually exposes the extremes of the person doing the paraphrasing"... ok, sure. If it is extreme to point out the hypocrisy of someone for highlighting another's ego while in the same breath espousing the superiority of their own views, then I suppose my extremes have been exposed. You got me.
Therefore, other than my addition of adjectives like bright and shining, how did I unfairly paraphrase what Lydia said?
Actually, that's pretty much the root of it -- your unnecessary ramping up of the sarcasm-otron. As far as I can see, Lydia didn't set up any kind of black-and-white, us-vs.-them-type comparison that you claim she did. By not falling into that trap, she was able to actually point out hypocrisy without being a hypocrite herself.
Uh huh.
So Lydia describes Malott's comments as "pompous". She then states that she fears for the country because of his worldview (implying that there isn't cause for fear with her contrasting worldview). But that doesn't create a "black-and-white, us-vs.-them-type comparison".
Got it. Can't argue with logic like that.
OK, so in your mind it's impossible to point out pomposity without being a raging egoist? Then right back at ya!
"There you go with that concept of "devoutness".
Mojo,
paraphrazing another of my posts:
"I'm trying to imagine a devout Democrat Christian... A person who has studied God's word to show himself approved... Who seeks first the Kingdom... Who embraces holiness and strives for sanctification...
And then this person turns around and says... "I think a woman should have the right to kill her inconvenient child... And though homosexuality is a stench in God's nostrils, I can get on board with the Gay Agenda... And the ACLU rules! Let's keep God out of the classroom and the public square."
A devout Christian does not play patty-cake with the Left. The Left and the Right serve different Masters."
I guess it depends on what "devout" means.
Nope. While actual pomposity would seem to lend itself toward raging egotism, the spotlighting of it does not trouble me. It's the whole "your worldview causes me to fear for my country," but, by contrast, "my worldview is good and noble" part that strikes me as a bit egotistical.
Amused,
But if, as you say, the spotlighting of hypocrisy automatically denotes that the "spotlighter" holds an opposite view, doesn't your logic dictate that the spotlighter is, therefore, egotistical?
Malott,
You're exactly right. If someone is reading the Bible differently - and lives their lives accordingly, then they can also be devout, and just as Christian.
For the record mojo, just because I beleive islam is evil does not mean I'm anti-muslim. Get your facts straight please.
Mojo,
To me, a devout Christian doesn't treat the Bible like an hors d'oeuvre tray... Picking out what he likes. Once again - To me - A devout person does not accept abortion, the Gay agenda, the ACLU doctrine, and other tenets of the democrat party and the Left - because it flies in the face of Biblical truth.
But I do see your point.
Mojo, apparently you didn't read my comment carefully enough. At no point did I say anything about Lydia spotlighting hypocrisy. Rather, I said the spotlighting of pomposity doesn't trouble me. In short, I am having trouble making any sense whatsoever out of your last comment.
As you will note, I have not been talking about Lydia spotlighting hypocrisy (I believe you were the one who attributed that feat to her). Rather, I asserted that it was hypocritical of her to accuse Palin of being egotistical, while in the same post asserting that Malott's worldview causes her to fear for the country and implying that her own worldview must be the better choice.
Frankly, I am struggling to understand how you concluded that I have stated that spotlighting hypocrisy denotes a belief in the opposite view. My conclusion that Lydia holds the opposite view is based on her comment that Malott's worldview scares her. If that doesn't mean she holds an opposite view, I ask again, what does it mean? Further, surely you don't believe that the assertion that one's worldview is correct and another's is wrong does not exhibit some amount of egotism. And finally, if one makes a point of highlighting another's ego, while at the same time exhibiting egotism of their own, are they not being hypocritical?
Perhaps I am missing something. And to think, all this started because I was trying to get you to articulate why you thought I was unfairly paraphrasing Lydia. As best I can tell, your response was that I had used sarcasm, and somehow that makes it unfair.
Yes, I can see where that would trouble you. We certainly never see sarcasm utilized as a tool to point out the silliness of another's position. Oh wait. I just did it again. Dang!
Ah, yes. Slightly wrong word placement on my part. Because you originally pointed out the hypocrisy of her pointing out Malott's egotism while (allegedly) exhibiting her own egotism. That's where the part about hypocrisy came from. Then I compounded it by using it again later. My apologies.
Further, surely you don't believe that the assertion that one's worldview is correct and another's is wrong does not exhibit some amount of egotism.
There's a difference between having "some amount of egotism" and being egotistical. If we had no ego, nothing would ever get done. But it's a matter of degree. My beef is that you didn't address what she actually said, but used sarcasm to put words in her mouth to make it easier for you to create the strawman you wanted to fight against.
According to your philosophy, it is impossible to criticize anyone about anything without being a raging egoist.
What she actually said: "Truly, with a worldview like that I am more worried than ever about this country."
I read that to mean that she believes Malott's worldview is wrong, and will inevitably lead this country down a dangerous path. And that strikes me as the sort of pompous, all-encompassing statement that Lydia accused Malott of making. And dare I say it, a wee bit egotistical?
Does criticizing someone make you a raging egotist? Nope. And, despite your conclusion to the contrary, I don't believe I have asserted that at any point. However, depending on the nature and presentation of the criticism, egotism may be exhibited. And if the criticism carries with it an egotistical viewpoint, it seems a bit hypocritical for the criticizer to, in the same breath, accuse another of having an ego (as Lydia did of Palin).
No strawman here. Yes, I used sarcasm by adding the words "bright" and "shining", but how does that make the description of her underlying comment, or the irony of her making that comment while criticizing Palin for having an ego, incorrect? If she believes her worldview is right and we should follow it, do you really think she would describe the results of that course of action as a "dark and dingy" future? As a result, I still can't understand why it was an unfair paraphrase. But sometimes I'm a bit dense.
Post a Comment