Thurs. Debate Moderator Bias!

[Slogger]

October 1st, 2008 12:08 AM Eastern

Conflict of Interest? Should someone pull out of the VP debate? or not?

by Greta Van Susteren


Gwen Ifill, the moderator of this week’s debate between Governor Palin and Senator Biden is writing a new book to come out in January: The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.

Below is Gwen Ifill talking about her book.  Here are questions for you: is it a conflict of interest since she is writing about Senator Obama and wants her book to sell (i.e. make money)? Should she be moderating the debate this Thursday?

(Greta's response)
My answer: it all depends on whether she disclosed it to the McCain - Palin campaign and they said ok.  Or if the book is not friendly to Senator Obama, then the same disclosure to him and ok from him. That is the way it is done in the legal business — called full disclosure. (I suppose, regardless of friendly or not to either candidate, full disclosure to both was necessary. ) Otherwise? it is a conflict of interest and the offended ticket should pull out of the debate…or she should. By the way, it could be a book about an important issue …but that does not take away the issue of conflict.

[Ref:  http://gretawire.foxnews.com/page/2/     ]

[Slogger]

I believe Gwen Ifil should be replaced by someone less biased.

A debate should be a level field, not a weighted, uphill battle.

McCain/Palin could not refuse to debate, and Obama/Biden would not complain--they must love it!

The moderator should be a person with less bias, not a person who is scheduled to release a new book on Obama, not a person with a stake in the outcome.

[fatcatlurker]

How do you feel the moderator would show bias in a controlled debate?  I'm just curious?  I mean I try to watch all the debates, except when they are so boring I fall asleep, and I'm just not sure how bias could be conveyed in this kind of setting.  I've seen candidates on both sides over talk the moderator, but they still get asked the same questions.  And the interview is for Biden/Palin.  Enlighten me ...I will watch for these things you tell me.

I also want to point out that all the moderator's are from what some call liberal MSM, shouldn't that also be brought up.  Why just this debate?  Tim Russert is probably gonna be watching from above and wishing he could be here.

[WhiskeyGirl]

I've never watched many debates, but here are some ideas from the web -

I bet the left would want her out it the title of the book had been.......

The Breakthrough: Politics and Gender in the Age of Palin.

Posted by: Joe | Oct 1, 2008 3:58:14 PM

The concern (for either side) should not be if the moderator has a bias, it should be if the moderator has a bias and is clever enough to hide or disguise it while still appearing to be impartial. It should be easy for most viewers to notice an obviously hostile moderator. Besides, the vice-president should be able to communicate effectively with all types of audiences, from friendly to angry, informed to ignorant.

Posted by: jfx | Oct 1, 2008 3:48:23 PM

How would you feel about the author of Palin's biography moderating the debate?

Posted by: Jeremy L | Oct 1, 2008 3:15:42 PM

Another thing: unlike Ifill's book, a book about the suffrage movement would not sell to a greater or lesser extent based on the outcome of the election.

Posted by: Sharon | Oct 1, 2008 3:13:27 PM

I am not familiar with Ifill, but this is not about race. It's about money. If Obama is elected, the book would be far more popular than it would be if he loses. Ifill has a very direct and substantial financial incentive to be easier on Biden and harder on Palin.

In spite of my skepticism, I am hopeful that the debate will be more revealing of both candidates than the prior interviews have been. I am willing to give Ifill the benefit of the doubt, and I hope she doesn't mess this up. We'll find out tomorrow night whether she can be impartial, but if she's not, any unfair effects from a lack of impartiality cannot be undone.

Posted by: Sharon | Oct 1, 2008 3:11:38 PM

I don't really see this as a racial issue. It is more an issue of impartiality and credibility. My Dad wrote a book about Harry Truman and coauthored a book about FDR. Of course, he wrote his books long after their respective terms in office. However, suppose he had written his book about Truman way back in 1946, let's say, just after he got out of the Army.
Could he have been an impartial arbiter in a debate between Truman's and Dewey's running mates in 1948? That's hard to say. Could he have been credible as a moderator in such a debate? I think the answer would have to be no. Dad, a party line Democrat, was clearly pro-FDR and pro-Truman. How could he not have been viewed therefore as also favoring Truman's running mate?
Neither a staunch Democrat nor a staunch Republican can be credible as a moderator in a high-stakes political debate. That job requires somebody who has a reputation as open-minded and is politically independent or neutral. That would be true regardless of the race of the candidates.

Posted by: Charlie Gies | Oct 1, 2008 3:01:30 PM

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2008/10/can-author-gwen.html

[WhiskeyGirl]

My first syndicated column of the week, filed this afternoon, shines light on PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, who will moderate Thursday’s only vice presidential debate. Try as she might to deflect questions about her impartiality, her biases — and her conflict of interest — are clear. But don’t you dare breathe a word about any of this. You know what will happen if you do…

RACIST!

Sidenote: TVNewser reports that Ifill has broken her ankle, but she’s still going to do the debate. But will she disclose her conflict of interest? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ask the Commission on Presidential Debates if she will acknowledge her conflict of interest: 202-872-1020.

And here’s the e-mail address of Janet H. Brown, Executive Director of the Debates Commission: jb@debates.org

Hopefully, their email system works better than the House.

Tons of readers recommend that Sarah Palin open her debate remarks by congratulating Ifill on her book and asking her to tell everyone the title.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/a-debate-%E2%80%9Cmoderator%E2%80%9D-in-the-tank-for-obama/

My use of bold above.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Detractors charge that Ifill shows political bias not only with the book, WorldNetDaily reports, but also with facial expressions she made during the Republican National Convention. Ed Morrissey of the blog hotair.com also mentioned a piece Ifill wrote for Essence magazine on the Obamas.

Morrissey, however, charges that even if the book is not biased politically, there is still a financial conflict of interest because an Obama win could help its sales -- especially with a release date coinciding with inauguration time.

"Moderators should not have a financial stake in the election," Morrissey wrote.

http://news.aol.com/elections/debates/article/debate-moderator-ifill-faces-bias/196918

My use of bold above.

[WhiskeyGirl]

My dictionary defines "moderator" as "the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting." On Thursday, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill will serve as moderator for the first and only vice presidential debate. The stakes are high. The Commission on Presidential Debates, with the assent of the two campaigns, decided not to impose any guidelines on her duties or questions.

In an imaginary world where liberal journalists are held to the same standards as everyone else, Ifill would be required to make a full disclosure at the start of the debate. She would be required to turn to the cameras and tell the national audience that she has a book coming out on Jan. 20, 2009 - a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States.

Random House, her publisher, is already busy hyping the book with YouTube clips of Ifill heaping praise on her subjects, including Obama and Obama-endorsing Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick. The official promo for the book gushes:

"In 'The Breakthrough,' veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African-American politicians forging a bold new path to political power. ... Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Sen. Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the 'black enough' conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history."

...The moderator expected to treat both sides fairly has grandiosely declared this the "Age of Obama." Can you imagine a right-leaning journalist writing a book about the "stunning" McCain campaign and its "bold" path to reform timed for release on Inauguration Day - and then expecting a slot as a moderator for the nation's sole vice presidential debate?

Despite the protestations of her colleagues that she will be fair, Ifill has appeared on numerous radio and TV talk shows over the past several months to cash in on her access to the Obama campaign. ...

During the Republican National Convention, the PBS ombudsman fielded numerous complaints about Ifill's coverage of Sarah Palin's speech. Wrote Brian Meyers of Granby, Ct.:

"I was appalled by Gwen Ifill's commentary directly following Gov. Sarah Palin's speech. Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust. Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill's complete disregard for journalistic objectivity."

http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810010373

[WhiskeyGirl]

How do you feel the moderator would show bias in a controlled debate?  I'm just curious?  I mean I try to watch all the debates, except when they are so boring I fall asleep, and I'm just not sure how bias could be conveyed in this kind of setting.  I've seen candidates on both sides over talk the moderator, but they still get asked the same questions.  And the interview is for Biden/Palin.  Enlighten me ...I will watch for these things you tell me.

I also want to point out that all the moderator's are from what some call liberal MSM, shouldn't that also be brought up.  Why just this debate?  Tim Russert is probably gonna be watching from above and wishing he could be here.

I think one key factor for a moderator is NOT having a financial interest related to the debate they are moderating.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Do the other moderators have financial interests related to the presidential elections?

[caesu]

shows again how bad the Republican campaign is run that they agreed to the presidential debate conditions on August 5th while before that day it was already publicly known that Gwen Ifill was going to publish this book.

and only today, one day before the debate, this is suddenly brought up by some right-wing panick bloggers.
sounds to me like pre-emptive disaster management.

[Slogger]

How do you feel the moderator would show bias in a controlled debate?  I'm just curious?  I mean I try to watch all the debates, except when they are so boring I fall asleep, and I'm just not sure how bias could be conveyed in this kind of setting.  I've seen candidates on both sides over talk the moderator, but they still get asked the same questions.  And the interview is for Biden/Palin.  Enlighten me ...I will watch for these things you tell me.

I also want to point out that all the moderator's are from what some call liberal MSM, shouldn't that also be brought up.  Why just this debate?  Tim Russert is probably gonna be watching from above and wishing he could be here.

I think one key factor for a moderator is NOT having a financial interest related to the debate they are moderating.

Few moderators are totally unbiased, but this situation is incredible. 

If Ifill's book is released around the time of an Obama Innauguration, she stands to make possibly $300K or more.  One talking head compared the downside:  If Obama doesn't win, she might sell all of 4 copies to her relatives.

There is a matter of overwhelming APPEARANCE of IMPROPRIETY.

[Slogger]

shows again how bad the Republican campaign is run that they agreed to the presidential debate conditions on August 5th while before that day it was already publicly known that Gwen Ifill was going to publish this book.

and only today, one day before the debate, this is suddenly brought up by some right-wing panick bloggers.
sounds to me like pre-emptive disaster management.

Other moderators have been accepted with few questions.

Why don't we just have Hannity moderate?

(Dems might rather have Soros, or cut out the middle man and just permit Obama to moderate.)

[crazybabyborg]

shows again how bad the Republican campaign is run that they agreed to the presidential debate conditions on August 5th while before that day it was already publicly known that Gwen Ifill was going to publish this book.

and only today, one day before the debate, this is suddenly brought up by some right-wing panick bloggers.
sounds to me like pre-emptive disaster management.

Other moderators have been accepted with few questions.

Why don't we just have Hannity moderate?

(Dems might rather have Soros, or cut out the middle man and just permit Obama to moderate.)

  I was thinking today that this whole election process would be more expedient if we just asked the media who they would like to be President and then installed  their candidate on the spot, immediately. Case in point:

Unlike Clinton, Biden Gets Pass for Saying He Was 'Shot At' in Iraq

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by Barack Obama's campaign -- but the campaign has been silent about Joe Biden telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.

When Hillary Clinton told a tall tale about "landing under sniper fire" in Bosnia, she was accused of "inflating her war experience" by rival Democrat Barack Obama's campaign.

But the campaign has been silent about Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, telling his own questionable story about being "shot at" in Iraq.

"Let's start telling the truth," Biden said during a presidential primary debate sponsored by YouTube last year. "Number one, you take all the troops out - you better have helicopters ready to take those 3,000 civilians inside the Green Zone, where I have been seven times and shot at. You better make sure you have protection for them, or let them die."

But when questioned about the episode afterward by the Hill newspaper, Biden backpedaled from his claim of being "shot at" and instead allowed: "I was near where a shot landed."

The senior senator from Delaware went on to say that some sort of projectile "landed" outside a building in the Green Zone where he and another senator had spent the night during a visit in December 2005. The lawmakers were shaving in the morning when they felt the building shake, Biden said.

"No one got up and ran from the room-it wasn't that kind of thing," he told the Hill. "It's not like I had someone holding a gun to my head."

The rest of the press ignored the flap at the time because Biden was viewed as having little chance of ending up on the Democratic presidential ticket. But even after Biden was selected to be Obama's running mate last month, his claim to have been "shot at" drew no scrutiny from the same reporters who had savaged Clinton for making a similar claim that turned out to be false.
 
FOX News has been asking the Obama campaign for details of the alleged shooting in Iraq ever since Biden was tapped to be vice president. Biden campaign spokesman David Wade promised an answer last week, but failed to provide one.

Meanwhile, the gaffe-prone Biden has again raised eyebrows with another story about his exploits in war zones - this time in Afghanistan. Biden said he will grill Republican rival Sarah Palin in Thursday's vice presidential debate about "the superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down."

"If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me," Biden bragged to the National Guard Association. "Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are."
But it turns out that inclement weather, not terrorists, prompted the chopper to land in an open field during Biden's visit to Afghanistan in February. Fighter jets kept watch overhead while a convoy of security vehicles was dispatched to retrieve Biden and fellow Senators Chuck Hagel and John Kerry.

"We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs, but we didn't have to," joked Kerry, a Democrat, to the AP. "Other than getting a little cold, it was fine."

Biden never explicitly claimed his chopper had been forced down by terrorists. Nonetheless,

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Obama-Biden officials have been less than forthcoming about Biden's dramatic war stories.

"They never explained Biden's helicopter story from last week - which is very similar to the story about getting 'shot at' in Baghdad," Rogers said.

Bill Sammon
http://current.com/items/89357634_biden_shot_at_why_was_hillary_taken_down_for_similiar_story

Can you imagine the legs this story would have if McCain or Palin had made such a gaff? Senator Clinton could fill you in. If Gwen Ifill were a McCain supporter and writing a book to be released on inauguration day with "The McCain Age" in the title, the press attack on this situation would blitz the coverage of the bailout. She was ethically obligated to disclose this information when she was selected. Not only does she carry a bias, but has a financial interest in who is elected. The McCain campaign just learned of it, and IMO, I don't think it's something anyone would be suspicious enough to ask of anyone calling themselves a professional journalist. Most polls declared the winner of the first Obama/McCain debate as Obama. I may not agree with that, but I do feel that Jim Lehrer was fair in his moderation and questions. Despite "my candidate" coming out on the bottom, according to polls, I am able to feel that both men stood on their merits. Lehrer doesn't enter the equation when I reach that conclusion.

Already, with the upcoming VP debate, there is a third party factor, and that cheats all the voters, IMO.

[islandmonkey]

Maybe we should send the moderator a special 12 step kit to "GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!"

[Slogger]

 

CBB, for the most part I agree that Jim Lehrer was not a disruptive, 3rd person.  However, he did spend precious minutes attempting to persuade the candidates to engage with each other.

My personal opinion is I wanted the candidates to talk to us, to tell US their views.  Obama won't vote for McCain; McCain won't vote for Obama.  If they want our votes, they should talk to us.

Ifill was the FIRST TO KNOW there was a conflict.  She should have informed the committee.  She did not.

[Slogger]

 


That's beautiful, islandmonkey!

How many thousands can you manufacture?  The list of media people is very long.

[crazybabyborg]

CBB, for the most part I agree that Jim Lehrer was not a disruptive, 3rd person.  However, he did spend precious minutes attempting to persuade the candidates to engage with each other.

My personal opinion is I wanted the candidates to talk to us, to tell US their views.  Obama won't vote for McCain; McCain won't vote for Obama.  If they want our votes, they should talk to us.

Ifill was the FIRST TO KNOW there was a conflict.  She should have informed the committee.  She did not.

The Town Hall Meetings would have accomplished just what you have assertred and I totally agree. My questions, and those of the public are the ones I want answered, not those of ANY moderator. We all know where that idea went..........

[fatcatlurker]

I thought this first debate was pretty good, although boring compared to some I've seen.  The presidential candidates are pretty much polar opposites on alot of issues so there was not much info given for the public to decide on.  You Tube usually has someone daily post the candidates townhall mtgs speaking to the public, these are pretty good also.  I love watching the clips w/hecklers in the audience and how each side deals with them. I thought I would bring a little history forward here from a past debate with Mrs. Ifill moderating you can view the whole transcript at www.debates.org

I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I welcome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Edwards, the Democratic nominee.

These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my ability.

The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have not been told what they are.

The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute.

A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There's also a back-up buzzer system, if needed.

Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements.

There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed to remain silent throughout.

The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney.

Usually the debates are a great watch, few are a yawn, I think all should watch but I love politics so...

Whiskey Girl I understand yours and others concerns, but won't it really be Obama/Biden and Ifill as well as the Dems with egg on their faces if anything really horrendous happens?  And yeah I'm for the other guy, you know the one w/potential egg face.  I watched him go head to head w/Hannity and O'Reilly, so I think Mrs. Palin needs to be given the opportunity to show what she's got to offer.   Happy Koolaid drinking Veteran here.

Slogger these are some of the same moderators who have been doing the debates for yrs. pls look it up.  Hannity would shoot Obama if he were to moderate.  As Mrs. Ifill has done this debate thing before I think her judgement can be trusted a little more than Mr. Hannity or god forbade Rush Limbaugh..
I was trying to think of a woman other than her earlier, any real suggestions?

[fatcatlurker]

Cbb I'd like to see John McCain release his Vietnam records, as would many POW's who were held w/him but we don't hold our breath.  Although he did recently admit he could have gone home sooner, but he just couldn't leave his troops.  Some things make you go hmmmm.  I could go into a whole tear on his voting record w/veterans or should I say against, but I won't, you can google it or not. 

John McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Obama-Biden officials have been less than forthcoming about Biden's dramatic war stories.

They all have dirt, JMO.

[islandmonkey]

That's beautiful, islandmonkey!

How many thousands can you manufacture?  The list of media people is very long.

AS MANY NEEDED~and that's ALOT of koolaide drinkers