Thursday, September 11, 2008

ABC Charlie Gibson Sinks To New Low

ABC Charlie Gibson sank to a new low with the first Palen interview. ABC's decision to deliberately over edit the Vice Presidential Nominee's answers were below any fair and balanced standards of reporting.

Time after time during the question and answer period Sarah Palen's answers were heavily edited and cut short. Watching the video the viewer was left wandering what was the rest of the answer to Charlie's question. Sarah's lips were moving but no sound was coming out.

Scoring this interview I would have to score it Palen 1, Gibson 0. If this is the type of interviews we will see from the rest of the media in the future, maybe we should just call it off and head to the ballot box today.

I cannot understand what was going on the the editor's mind or why Charlie Gibson would allow someone to cut her answers in mid sentence. I have watched a lot of interviews of candidates and cannot remember watching a candidate talk without the words coming out. The only thing I can surmise from such heavy handed editing is Charlie did not like the complete answer that Sarah Palen gave for his questions.

This can only be seen as a terrible interview of which Sarah Palen won hands down.

Due to comments about this interview and what I saw, here is the video as aired on ABC World News

Technorati Tags:, , , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator


  1. Were we watching the same interview?? I watched in Canada and did not view any sound edits. What frustrated me was that Palin could not give a direct answer. Her body language was defensive and she needs to keep her hands in her lap...As far as "not blinking" when it comes to a decision about war, well I for one British Columbian shudder to think the usa would elect such a leader. It is like a bad joke and believe me we have great hockey moms

  2. Thank you, our neighbor to the north. I am glad that the cloud of delusion over Gov. Palin (learn to spell, State_of_America) has not spread across the border. Be very afraid.

  3. I think your frustrations with Charlie Gibson probably are caused more by the fact that Sarah Palen wouldn't answer (or COULDN'T answer) most of his questions. I thought she was a decent choice for his VP pick but I now think she's totally unprepared to be VP or any other national leader...

  4. As for kelowna: Were we watching the same interview??
    I am referring to the Network News "World News" interview. I understand it ran later on 'Nightline' without as much editing. As for what she said about "war", the question was about NATO and coming to the defense of another NATO member. I believe Canada is a NATO member and if they were attacked by say Russia, the US would not 'blink' when coming to the aid of Canada.

    Thanks to matt for pointing out my error in misspelling Gov. Palin's name. As for being " very afraid." I believe we have more things to be afraid of other than the next Vice President.

    Thanks rod for the comment but the majority of people believe she is as qualified or more qualified than Joe Biden. We are talking about the Vice President not the President position. Most commentators that read the full transcript of the interview seem to agree Palin did very well against Gibson and did answer his questions. I suspect you would never vote for her or McCain under any circumstance.

  5. I have grownup watching Charlie Gibson and I can tell you that his interview of Mrs. Palin was as disgusting a piece of journalism that ever hit the airwaves! I will admit I could only make it through a portion of the interview this morning and while I did not notice any moving lips, I did notice it was disjointed and that Charlie was hung up on global warming and it seemed like he actually thought an answer from anyone was the answer to his prayers. I would suggest that he go back to school and revisit some of his science classes and figure out why for the last billion or so years the earth has been warming up! While global warming is not something to be made light of I do not believe it was appropriate for Charlie to be as persistent with his interrogation of Mrs. Palin and trying to show his perceived dissent between Mrs. Palin and Mr. McCain.

    I will continue to watch Charlie, but I have much less respect for his ability to provide me with a fair and impartial view of the news and our nations current affairs.

  6. Charlie Gibson was arrogant and condesending, especially with his body language and tone of voice. However, I can't thank him enough for the interview. I just made up my mind to vote for the McCain/Palen ticket. I also will be leaving ABC forever...and Charlie, please hang it up. You seem older than McCain these days!

  7. Thank you for linking the actual interview.. I found her "not blinking" comments very concerning... We have had the country nearly destroyed for the last eight years by a President with no prior experience on International affairs who wouldn't blink.. but just talked tough and acted rashly and arrogantly. He was shallow and actually proud of his simple minded views. Bush promised to change Washington too when he was running... Palin's lack of experienc, naivete, leaves her vulnerable to being manipulated by her "handlers" now and in the future. She didn't know what the Bush doctrine was.. her experience and curiousity and education is simply lacking.. not even CLOSE to qualified.. No.. most people do NOT think she is as qualified to be president as Biden.. and yes that matters. If this ticket wins we'll have more of the same or worse and God help not just the US but the world.

  8. I think the "Bush Doctrine" is not yet defined by long-term history, but rather by spins of our current culture. Palin's first response will probably more directlty correspond to the "Bush Doctrine" on a broader look at history. Gibson had the opportunity when he phrased his question to Palin to let her in on the definition he was using. But he really wasn't interested in clarifying and working with her as an equal. Regardless, she held her ground beautifully.

    After ABC's coverage of the Republican Convention and cutting Joe Lieberman's speech at a critical point,I think ABC has an "fair and balanced agenda" towards Obama.

  9. So you're saying this would look differently if broadcast on Fox?

  10. Is it okay to use a country's territory without their permission in order to attack another country? Simple question, simple answer-- NO it's not.

    Pre-emptive strike... according to her it's acceptable to defend the country. What a play on words. A pre-emptive strike IS NOT DEFENSE. It is simply an offensive attack based on an opinion. It is not acceptable. It's the equivalent of walking down the street and stabbing someone to death because you believe based upon the clothing they were wearing, the way they looked at you and the color of their skin it was likely they were going to attack you...


  11. Gibson's "interview" of Obama previously was like a paid political announcement for Obama. Would like to see Obama answer directly the questions that Gibson asked, he would struggle more than she did. Comment not based on emotion, fact based, just look at Obama's O'Reiley interview, he really struggled

  12. Anonymous said...

    "A pre-emptive strike IS NOT DEFENSE. It is simply an offensive attack based on an opinion. It is not acceptable. It's the equivalent of walking down the street and stabbing someone to death because you believe based upon the clothing they were wearing, the way they looked at you and the color of their skin it was likely they were going to attack you..."

    What you are really saying is we should treat terrorist attacks and threats to our country as criminal acts and we must wait to be attacked before reacting. We did this during the Clinton Administration and all we got in return was 9/11. If you don't believe people are out there waiting for the opportunity to attack, kill, or destroy our country and citizens then nothing I say will ever convince you that these are not just criminals.

  13. Anonymous said...

    "So you're saying this would look differently if broadcast on Fox?"

    I don't care who is doing the interview. If they market the interview as unbiased and complete, then show it without editing the person's answers. Cutting and editing for time is one thing but at least edit the answer to a question at the end of the answer, not in the middle. When you read the transcript and watch the video you will find there is more to the answer than what is portrayed in the video. This is not "fair or balanced". I want the complete answer so I can make up my own mind. I don't need some commentator telling me what I saw or heard.

  14. No, what I am saying is a pre-emptive strike is NOT DEFENSE. I don't care if you believe it's right or wrong, you're entitled to your opinion... that's what a free country is about. Call it what it is. That is her stance & if you stand behind it, vote that way... if you don't, vote the other way.