Friday, September 12, 2008

Charles Gibson is an idiot

There I said it. I usually try to refrain from using harsh terminology against people I don't know. You know I try to think of them as "someone's dad, or grandpa" and I would never want anyone talking like that about my family. However, as I watched his interview with Sarah Palin this morning my blood really started to boil. I could not believe how irritated he looked he sounded as he asked her questions and awaited her responses. If you didn't get a chance to see it you can check out a very small portion below.....



I think if I were him I would try to be a little less obvious with my personal feelings about who I was interviewing and tried to be professional. He sounds annoyed, he is condescending, he looks at his watch while she is talking, etc. I think he just looked like a jerk and she held her own!
Palin 1
Liberal Media 0

9 comments:

Merge Divide said...

That's an illuminating post you have there. Your "blood was boiling" because of Gibson's attitude? Somehow I doubt that. It was more likely a response to Palin's inability to maintain her facade of competence. If she had come off well in the interview... believe me, you'd be crowing right now.

And by the way, Gibson tossed one softball after another, and moderated the little killer instict he has, so as not to leave himself open to claims of "sexism".

Daniel and Tiffany said...

I DO think she came off well in the interview. That was not my point. My problem with him was simply the facts that anyone can obviously see by watching the interview. He IS condescending in many of the questions he asks. I appreciate, however, the one-sided point of view you bring to the table.

Barefeet Photography said...

That's what happens when liberals run the media and try to make up empty minds. I'm sick of the television and the ignorant people who run it.

Merge Divide said...

daniel (etc.)

Uh-uh. You sure sound like someone defending a lousy performance to me. Mo matter. This is an indication of things to come with the McCain/Biden campaign. Every time a reporter dares to question her record or knowledge, they will be accused of being "biased" or "condescending".

barefeet,

"Liberals run the media"? You guys are always good for a laugh. The entire media is owned by four or five corporations that have a vested interest in keeping people like Obama out of national office. No matter, because many of the journalists are pissed at the way they were manipulated by the Bush Administration, and they really don't want another four years like that. Perfectly understandable. Don't be too resentful- you guys have all of talk radio and Fox News. That's a decent consolation prize for y'all.

Daniel and Tiffany said...

I'm just going to overlook the fact that you called it the McCain/Biden campaign.....

Barefeet Photography said...

Well you can vote for your Obamanation if you'd like to, and we'll vote McCain. Guess we have you, two votes to one.

Merge Divide said...

"I'm just going to overlook the fact that you called it the McCain/Biden campaign...."

LOL... I keep getting that confused- you know, they both have no executive experience and have been in Washington too long.

Kylea Hapka said...

Who is Merge Divide? Do you know this person personally or do they just skim through blogs looking for republicans to criticize? Palin is simply a candidate running for the vice presidency and Tiffany's blog was an example of a BIASED interview. Yes Palin needs to be asked the tough questions that are on the minds of Americans as they determine who is best suited to lead our country. If the person conducting the interview, in this case Gibson, doesn't listen to the answer then he's still only hearing what he WANTS to hear, not what she said.
Secondly I would like specific examples of how the media was manipulated by the Bush administration.

Merge Divide said...

kylea wrote...

"Who is Merge Divide? Do you know this person personally or do they just skim through blogs looking for republicans to criticize?"

I'll field that question. No, the owners of this blog do not know me personally. After searching for blog reaction to the Palin Interview I came across this post. That's how the internet works. If you choose to create a public forum, people can search your opinions and perspectives on Google. If you make the choice to allow a comment section, it is an implicit invitation for people to share feedback.

Is it really so hard for you to believe that someone would seek out folks with different ideas and beliefs? That's a sad commentary.

you wrote...

"Palin is simply a candidate running for the vice presidency and Tiffany's blog was an example of a BIASED interview."

Yes, Palin is running for the position of VP- which carries an enormous responsibility... that is to carry out the duties of the presidency should the executive become unable to perform his/her duties. The ramifications of the Palin candidacy is anything but simple. And by the way, Tiffany's blog is not "an example of a BIASED interview".

Interviews are meant to somehow shed light on the interviewee. The answers that Palin provided were available to a national audience. The main purpose of the interview was so that Americans could learn about Palin in a situation where she would be expected to share her knowledge, beliefs and philosophies in an unscripted forum. This is exactly what happened, and Palin came off to the majority of viewers as unqualified to serve in the role she has put herself up for. If you are unhappy with the results, you need to direct a portion of this toward Palin. Gibson astonished everyone by asking substantial, relevant questions... and by insisting that Palin be held responsible for answering them. That's his job as a journalist. The ironic thing is that he was carefully handpicked by the McCain/Palin campaign.

"Secondly I would like specific examples of how the media was manipulated by the Bush administration."

I suspect that this is a rhetorical device, and you won't consider what I provide objectively. But I'll treat your request as sincere.

For starters, I suggest you do a bit of research into the Plame affair, and how it was handled by the Bush Administration. You can also revisit the justifications presented by Bush and Co. in the run-up to the Iraqi War. There is plenty available on that topic from a wide range of sources.

HERE is a clip from a PBS Frontline episode concerning exactly what I'm talking about it. If you truly want to be informed, watch it and follow-up with more study. If your mind is already made up, and you believe that Bush has not manipulated the media, then don;t ask for information.