StubbornFacts
Stubborn Facts
Stubborn Facts

Navigation

User login

Subscribe via RSS

Resources

The latest from our partner, the PoliGazette

Blog Roll

A Quick Take On Two Controversies,

Submitted by Rafique on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 10:59pm

One that is a kind of creepy, but ultimately is no big deal, and another, which also no big deal, but has the righty blogosphere in total hysterical pile-on mode. As for the first one, consider this video (HT: Althouse):

Now, I know it's just a bunch of young Obama supporters singing his praises, but that just looks creepy, and has the unintended consequence of looking like something out of North Korea. Obviously, this isn't anything like that, and by all accounts this wasn't orchestrated by the Obama camp, but not only do I get a weird vibe from that video, shouldn't someone have anticipated how some people might react? I mean, these are like nine-year olds, right? Besides that fact that this will, and already has been misinterpreted by Obama's enemies, there's something unseemly about involving children in politics this way. I get the same vibe I got from those tawdry political children's books that came out last election, like this one. Who feeds their kid that garbage?

In other news, the righties are in a general uproar over the fact that Gwen Ifill, the moderator for the debate tonight, has written a book that features Obama heavily. They argue that if Obama wins, she gains financially, so it's a conflict of interest.

You know what? I'm calling bulls**t on that. First off, Ifill's book has been known of since as far back as July, and the McCain campaign agreed on Ifill weeks before Palin was even picked. In early August. Obama was the nominee in July. The book is listed on Amazon. Are we supposed to believe that they really didn't figure this out until just a few days ago? I just don't buy it. Besides, Ifill seems like a more than capable journalist, and the debates I've watched her moderate show me that she can do the job pretty well. If I were a cynical man, I'd suspect that the McCain camp was using this as a preemptive excuse if Palin doesn't do well, although even McCain himself has said that he trusts Ifill. Call me naive, but how hard is it to assume that her own sense of fair play, or her desire not to be bombarded with a storm of criticism won't keep her honest? I suspect she may overcompensate now, in order to fend off criticism.

At the end of the day, I believe Palin's success or failure tonight will depend on her skills, not the alleged predispositions of the moderator. HT: Althouse again

Oh, and praising Palin in America will get you heat in certain circles, but in Pakistan, it might just get you a fatwa. HT: Althouse one more time

Re:calling bulls**t on that

We'll see. Ifill's self intrest *does* put pressure on her and could influence the debate. If she so much as lifts an eyebrow against Palin, she would give Mc/P an advantage on national tv. they can claim being biased against and that meme is gaining ground in the non-net world. That's the last thing Obama needs. Add the medal, the sing-song, and the Obama channel (yes there is one on Dish network) there could be a backlash .

Rachel

I brew the beer I drink

recusal

Come on now, Rafique.If the shoe were on the other foot, and some righty news guy with a pro-McCain book was moderating (which by the way could never happen, IMO) the lefty blogosphere would be apoplectic.

Here's the thing...there's reason to think that Ifill can still do a credible job, but there's still the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest. Undeniably, it would be better for the moderator not to have a book due out soon that puffs one of the candidates. Or that in any way concerns either of them.

The most honorable and sensible thing for Ifill to do is to recuse herself even though she thinks she can still be fair. Folks do this all the time, and it's never supposed to be taken as an admission that they can't be fair. It's simply a way of honoring the importance of a process by setting a high bar for neutrality. Undeniably, Ifill is not an especially neutral party.

Surely we can expect her book to sell better if Obama wins, right? That doesn't mean she can't cover the election. But it makes her, IMO, a poor choice to play the role of a neutral arbiter.
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

Fair points, Brian.

I've no doubt that if things were reversed, the Left would be just as upset, and I also agree that a righty counterpart to Ifill doesn't really exist (this is PBS we're talking about). Thinking it over, maybe she should've recused herself to avoid any further drama, but I still don't think it's that big of a deal, absent the hysteria.

I'm still calling BS on McCain's assertion that he didn't know. That's just too hard to swallow.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Agree on both subjects

Good points, Rafique.

And I may be wrong, but my understanding is that McCain hasn't himself complained about Ifill. It's been various conservative pundits who have loudly complained.

I believe Palin's success or failure tonight will defend on her skills, not the alleged predispositions of the moderator.

The moderator can only swing things so much. The line on Palin is that she's the second coming of Dan Quayle. I don't think Ifill is her biggest challenge.

praising Palin in America will get you heat in certain circles, but in Pakistan, it might just get you a fatwa.

It might get you a fatwa in certain circles in America, too :-)

True enough, Pastor Jeff, on all points.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

Nope, I was wrong.

McCain did criticize the selection of Ifill a moderator -- once again proving that stupidity and special pleading are owned by no man or party.

Yep.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

I may be one of the few who

I may be one of the few who have no interest in listening to this propaganda piece, That said, later today I am laying down the scratch track of the first song I ever wrote - it's very depressing - and maybe giving this video a spin might just get me in the proper dark mood to give my track life.

McCain tanking underway?

This is off-topic, but I'm wondering what the folks here at SF think of the current substantial tanking McCain is currently taking in the polls. If you look at the real clear politics electoral map, Obama has 259 electoral votes counting only the solid states where one candidate is ahead by 7 or 8 points or more.

Even more astonishing, McCain has a count of ZERO when it comes to the number of states that are "leaning," showing a margin of like 4 or 5 points. Every state with a rolling average under 9 points is either leaning Obama by 5-8 points or within 0-3 points. Among those in the 0-3 range, 6 of these 8 states are leaning towards Obama. The only 2 leaning McCain are Missouri and Indiana.

Obviously there's a month to go, and a few debates. But as of today, it looks like there's a very substantial swing towards Obama underway. If voter views stabilize anywhere near here, it won't even be close, Obama will collect 350+ electoral votes. People wil use the L word if that happens.

Thoughts?
__________
I have often said, and oftener think, that this world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel. -Horace Walpole

My thoughts are that every

My thoughts are that every move McCain has made within the last couple of weeks has blown up in his face. Probably some of the worst handling of situations that I have seen since John Kerry. I think the blunders and lack of leadership the last couple of weeks may be fatal to the McCain campaign. I really think he needs some new leadership at the top of his campaign in both tactics and economic advice. The people he has there now have failed him.

Holy Smokes!!!! More Fake Right Outrage Batman!!!!!!!!

God folks, with the very coordinated Faux News media and other outlets attack on Ifill all amidst an air of panic and desperation, enough to slander a very good journalist, I have a few things from a media pro.

First, for 6-18 months before publication we have the usual lists of upcoming books, short on details but with authors names and the working titles. Bowker's Forthcoming books is published quarterly. People actually subscribe to these. These are sent to book store buyers, book reviewers and TV shows such as Fox and Friends, Harpo Productions (Oprah) Daily Show and radio show producers for people like Ronn Owens of KGO as a local angle and of course to many of the syndicated radio personalities around the country like Limbaugh, Miller, Rhodes, Hannity, etc... If you are a hotshot media producer you have this on your desk all the time or you don't have a job. Rupert Mudochs publishing empire, HC, Doubleday et al constantly send there lists out just in case if you didn't get it the first time, the second time, the third time...It's like pharmaceutical salesmen hounding doctors offices. Occasional the cover art is displayed with the blurbs. These can be used for preliminary publicity like your local bookstore putting the latest Dan Simmons title on the wall along with other forthcoming books.

Around half a year before publication the marketing shifts into higher gear. We have press releases and media packages that go to the producers of the aforementioned TV shows, Newspapers like the Washington Times, NY times, SF Chrinicle, you name it. (Which did a write up on Ifills forthcoming book in JULY!!!) These include summaries, quotes, and are often packaged up in a pretty folder with lots of expensive artwork. (There are similar press kits for movies that I used to edit from all the time-sometimes you get cool schwag)
Keith Olberman showed one on air last night for Ifills book.

For anyone to say - "they didn't know and just found out" they're lying big time. This was a timed coordinated attack on the reputation of a solid journalist who gave Bill Clinton plenty or hard times.The profit motive is also a shuck and jive. I call it a panic attack because that's what it is. The McCain's supporters are like a baby on a high chair throwing strained spinach against the wall to see if it will stick because Palin is a disaster and McCains numbers are tanking.

Somewhere Dan Quayle is pumping his fist and going "Yes!" while watching Saturday Night Live.

Well, Marcus...

I guess that proves that the Columbia Journalism Review, not exactly a noted bastion of conservatism, is also in the tank for John McCain, because today the CJR said that Ifill's book does indeed create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Why is it that you folks on the left can't just admit, yep, it's not appropriate while asking us not to make a big deal about it. McCain didn't express "outrage" over the conflict, he noted it, said that somebody else really should have been chosen, and then said that he had confidence in Ifill's professionalism. What about that do you disagree with? Are you ok if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity is chosen as the moderator for the next debate? Kindly go on record if that's the case.

I like and respect Ifill

I like and respect Ifill alot--she is one of the beter journalists out there. While I do see the point that the book kind of creates an appearance of a conflict, given Ifill's past professionalism, given that the book seems to be more of an exploration of race than anything else and given that it would be difficult for her to favor Biden in the debate w/o destroying her reputation, I don't think it's a big deal. And, I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way if it were a well-respected journalist writing a book about McCain's war years or something. However, it's rather unfair to compare Ifell with limbaugh or hannity, who aren't journalists but rather are partisan editorialists (the liberal version of them would be rachel maddow or al franken).

She's an Obama supporter who

She's an Obama supporter who is writing a book whose major premise - that there will be an "age of Obama" - depends on one side of the table in the debate she's moderating prevailing in this election. I like Gwen too, I'm a PBS/CSPAN guy, but her position as moderator is untenable.

I obviously haven't read the

I obviously haven't read the book, but from the blurbs about the book it seems to be an examination of how the civil rights struggle produced/affected current black political leaders (Obama is one of the four she examined), which doesn't to me seem to be that big of a deal for a debate moderator. Sure, her book would sell better if Obama won, but given that a debate moderator in a vp debate has little influence on who wins, I'm having a tough time imagining what people are worried about. As for her being an Obama supporter, well, I guess every journalist is a supporter of some candidate--if she were an overt supporter I guess I would be more sympathetic. I'm not saying that there isn't an appearance of some conflict, but I haven't heard anyone really say what the specific worry is, and there is certainly nothing worth getting so worked up over like some on the right are.

In any event, she was approved by both candidates and it seems a little much for McCain to be complaining now.

Why is it a little much?

This is the question I can't get people to answer. Why is even just raising the question portrayed as "expressing outrage" or "whining"? It's a conflict. It should be noted. There's nothing wrong with noting it. If more folks in the media and on the left would adopt your attitude, Justin, and say "yep, it's a conflict, but it's too late to do anything about it now so let's make the best of it, glad it's now been publicly disclosed," (I think that's a fairly accurate summary of your position), then I think most of the McCain camp would say "ok." It's the refusal by the left or the media to acknowledge that an issue even exists, and their characterization of McCain's raising a question about it as "faux-outrage," that drives me up the wall and causes me to not let it drop.

Yep, noting a conflict of

Yep, noting a conflict of interest is called "disclosure." Pretty SOP, and since it wasn't disclosed previously, it should be now.

Well Pat, I'm more than willing to acknowledge that there's an

issue here, and I think that's one of the reasons I wrote the post. My only issue was with what I perceived as an overreaction to the situation. If I left any other impression, I apologize. Many have taken a valid position on this, and I was simply disagreeing with it.

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

However, it is hard to deny

However, it is hard to deny she has a financial interest in who wins. The book is being released on Inauguration Day. It seems obvious that if Obama wins, there will be a whole lot more books sold on that day than if he loses.

This is not partisan. She now has a vested financial interest in Barak Obama winning. That is an ethical problem in any job. Partisan interest is far less of an ethical issue than a financial interest.

The title of her book is enough of a problem. If it did not include "Age of Obama" no one would care because she is not attaching the success of the book to the candidate. Then add the date it is being released. Sorry, that is a major ethical failure for her to be involved in a debate. It doesn't matter who she is. It could be Tom Brokaw writing and moderating and I would feel the same way.

It was...

It was Marcus who brought up Limbaugh & Hannity, not me. Brit Hume would be a much more equivalent analogy.

But the fact is, there's a double standard. In 2000, a reporter was fired from his job as Washington correspondent with ABC news because he was writing a book about Al Gore. That rule apparently doesn't apply to Ifill any more than it applied to Sam Donaldson or all the other national journalists who were writing books which were critical of Reagan, Bush, or whatever other Republican candidate they were covering.

this must be telephone

My reference to Hannity et al lwas that their PRODUCERS are constant recipients of promotional materials from teh book publishers.

As for Ifill, there has never been, from anything I can recall, any ding to her journalistic integrity. Win or lose the book will sell. She started this project years ago before Obama started his presidential run.

She started this project

She started this project years ago before Obama started his presidential run.

That is really inconsequential based on the title and the release date. She is trying to profit on Obama getting elected. It matters little the content. If the book was not titled what it was and was not being released when it is, no one would care. I'll even give that it may have been the publisher that set the title and date. However, once she went along with it, she should have excused herself due to a fiduciary interest in the outcome. That is the ethical thing to do.

Hannity and Limbaugh are no Ifill

Not even close. They have zero journalistic cred. They're opinion mavens.

Maybe Chris Wallace. But I bet you'll find that Ifill will do her profession credit tonight.

How will we know?

It's a very subjective thing. Does she interrupt too much? Too little? Did she treat Biden differently than Palin? Did she bend over backwards too much to show that she WASN'T being biased against Palin?

We have rules against even the APPEARANCE of impropriety because once those conflicts exist, then every action automatically becomes judged through that lens, and objective analysis really can't be made.

Yeah, earlier someone

Yeah, earlier someone (Justin I think) said that there was perhaps 'appearance of conflict of interest.' That's not really an accurate phrase because conflict of interest has 'appearance' built into the definition. You don't have to act improperly or bias to display conflict of interest- the conflict is simply there one way or the other if you have a vested interest, and it is possible to rise above that but there's an appearance that can taint the outcome of the activity in question.

I think it's a shame really, because this somewhat nullifies the significance of the debate. McCain supporters and Obama supporters have a built in excuse (either Ifill was biased and too hard on Palin, or she bent over backward to be fair to her and as a result was too hard on Biden.) It makes the actual outcome even more partisan filtered than it normally would be. And I'm not beyond thinking that this might have been partly intentional on the part of McCain's camp, but I still think it's a bit unfortunate.

I agree with your 2nd

I agree with your 2nd paragraph--both sides can use this as an excuse; liberals may try to claim that Gwen was overcompensating to avoid seeming biased and was too easy on Palin. But I'm still not troulbled by Gwen being the moderator. Now to watch the debate!!

Recent comments

Advertisements
StubbornFacts.us does not endorse the content of any advertisement

Featured Movie

Syndicate

Syndicate content

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 5 guests online.