I hate Charlie Gibson....

He does not ask the right follow-up questions.

For example, on Palin's experience he should have followed up and asked:

You say you have the experience but what evidence is there that you do? Sen. McCain and his wife say you do because you live closer to Russia then the rest of us. Does this mean you have experience in foreign affairs? Also, what orders did you ever give the Alaska National Guard? Please tell us all about your experience to be president of the US.

During a Dem primary debate he hammered the hell out of Obama on everything, never letting up.

when covering Democrats:



When covering Republicans:

I just laughed out loud and the whole office heard it.:rofl:

She's getting angry

see my original post...where were the follow-up questions on her experience.

I am sorry, I cannot forget the debate he anchored and would not stop harassing Obama on everything but the real issues....makes me sick.

see my original post...where were the follow-up questions on her experience.

I am sorry, I cannot forget the debate he anchored and would not stop harassing Obama on everything but the real issues....makes me sick.

They're not softball questions. She looks nervous and unsure of what to say. She obviously has memorized responses to various topics and won't go beyond them. She did not look pleased with Gibson. I basically can't stand Gibson since that debate and never watch ABC except for tonight.

I thought that the media had finally had enough and were really going to go after these guys!

Oh wait, I never thought that at all- but 100s of naive DUers keep saying it.

So much for the "people who buy ink by the barrel"- the media has no intention of any lasting attacks on their GOP masters.

But I have seen Chris Matthews go nuts.

And the print media too is getting into action.

I was one who used the quote about "ink by the barrel." I stand by it in the sense that they will get royally pissed that their precious "neutrality" is being threatened. When it hits close to home, they are really annoyed. It's the LAST thing they want to see, and those who do knuckle under have a sad fate, at least in history.

Oh, and historians are notoriously college professors who actually WRITE the critical histories of these campaigns. There ARE journalists and TV news people who are "elite" enough to care about their reputations...

The ink-barrel buyers did their master's bidding then as they will now.

I'll admit I'm wrong if everything you say still holds true in October.

My guess is a few voices here & there will be "allowed" to attack McCain for a few more days- maybe a couple of weeks.

Then in October they can say "see- we are objective- dont you remember when we attacked him a few weeks ago- enough with the cry-baby conspiracy theories..."

I'm not sure that these "college professors who actually WRITE the critical histories" are going to be interviewing Pailin or McCain on TV for the benefit of swing voters, but I hope you are right.

My point isnt to be negative- my point is that it is the job of DEMOCRATS to talk about GOP dirt on TV- expecting the media to do it for us is a mistake.

If you want something really controversial about Pailin to come out- a Democrat on TV will have to be the one who instigates it- not some ABC guy.

My point was that the press has been pretty much battered by events since they fell into line in 2002 with the Bush Admin. and they have suffered as a result. Witness: the NYT and The New Republic, in their unprecedented public apologies for going along on the rationales for the Iraq War. Not that they wanted to repent, they HAD to.

I have learned something in my long life: that people in public discourse who have had it all, fame and fortune, end up wanting ONE thing and that is a kind of immortality. They get scared shitless that they will go to their graves WRONG on history and held up to ridicule in the annals of history. Look, for them there is nothing else, is there?

Historians always end up with the last word. These journalists know this. You know this, too, I'll bet.

Historians who criticise the GOP AFTER THE FACT are pretty easy to find, I'll give you that.

Televison media celebrities that sway swing voters are not "historians" nor academics...

What journalists "know" and dont know isnt really at issue anymore- they "know" whatever they are told by GOP camapign managers...

Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I dont think so. I hope you are right.

We will see how these historians or whatever attack the GOP in October.

I see so many of the TV "journalists" as preening egoists, who "think" themselves as the equal of academic historians. I put Gibson in that category. Probably because he is a "Princeton man" and my experience with the Ivy League "man" has been one of extreme consciousness of self image, either drawling their speech (as Gibson does and Buckley used to do) or speaking very rapidly (notice Howard Dean's fast diction). I have seen this in countless Yalies and have encountered it myself (also in my ex husband who was a Harvard man).

But Ivy League aside, I still do feel that some journalists have felt burned by the Iraq war experience and are not eager to repeat the error. They seem to have "some" awareness of the excesses of 1988, 2000, and 2004. They were embarassed by the Swift Boaters when that came out.

Most of all they are acutely aware of the INTERNET. Not that "we" are so powerful, it's the technology. They just know that they can't get away with what they got away with before. Think about it...

Will swingvoters go to the respected periodicals, online or perhaps to CSPAN to seek out the opinions of esteemed historians & academics (ie "real" journalists)? I dont see it.

I seem to to think they will just trust what ever Gibson, Blitzer & Hume (ie "journalists") tell them come October- with little or no independent validation or research...

As I say, I hope you are right and I am wrong!

I'm not really arguing with you b/c I really want to be wrong about this.

I mean about the lipstick on a pig thing. It's a breaking point they get to. That's what I'm talking about and also, yes,their legacy.

I never expected Tweety to stand up. He did. See?

I remeber Tweety's "breaking point" over the Swiftboat vets too.

He critisised them once or twice, I'm pretty sure I remember a critical line or two in between showing their ads for free on his show...

As I say- I cant wait to be proved 100% incorrect come October- or even 75% incorrect- I would love to have faith in the GOP owned television stations.

I would be more inclinded to share your excitment if he had said "He is doing this becuase he has nothing else but attacks and distractions" instead of pretending to wonder why- That would have been unbiased and 100% accurate, actually. Then he softens the "blow" by giving him the benefit of the doubt with the "he doesnt have to" line.

I know, Iknow, I nit pick. 8 years worth of bias & out right fake news from him & others has had that affect on me...

OCTOBER. OCTOBER. OCTOBER.

I'll get excited about the media turning a new leaf if these signs are still in effect in October.

"errmmm, I'm getting lost in a sea of words, is that a yes or a no."

Now that was funny and it proves her to have been coached and unable to think on her feet.

And he had to explain the Bush Doctrine to her - for the love of god, she is an idiot and all of her coaches should be fired, including Lieberman.

her in when she asked "in what respect Charlie?"


How the fuck can she be the VP nominee now???

There was no need to a follow up. The fact that her answer was so lack of support spoke by itself.

being shown?

Seriously the two are best friends from his ABC days. Charlie is an unabashed republican and has always been one.

There was a reason he was selected. Brian Williams would have been tough but fair and McCain thinks NBC is in the tank for Obama and Katie Couric was too much of a wild card. You wouldn't know what would happen espicially with her being in third place. She might have taken it to her to up her ratings and called it a shocking interview. CNN has pissed of McCain and vice versa and Fox has no credibility.

This is one of the few days I long for Tim Russert. Love him or hate him he lived for the gotcha.

So nothing new here...

.

That's why the witch won't sit down with NYT or WaPo, only the cuddly non-threatening "Charlie", for god's sake he was a morning show HOST!

do you know what the Bush doctrine is? He was WAY too polite in explaining the Bush doctrine to her but then again, if he had, McCain-Palin would start whining again about how mean the media is and how this was a sexist question cause why in the world should a woman running for VP know this?

been accused of beating up on her. He looked absolutely disgusted, like a Dad quizzing one of his kids who should have studied for a test and was fudging the answers.