Gwen Ifill is not qualfied to “moderate” the VP Debate. You need someone without a vested interest in the debates/election’s outcome. I have always thought highly of Ifill. That is, I have given her high marks for professionalism and journalistic integrity, both of which are rapidly vanishing traits in today’s agenda-driven media environment. The fact that she is writing a Pro-Obama book leaves a bitter taste in this observor’s eyes.
Please share widely!
Story HERE.
<
p>The book sounds really interesting; I’d like to think she’d include black consrvatives like Michael Steele as well, but that’s not the point. The generational change in the movement is interesting in itself.
<
p>But this isn’t a long term project in her mind – the book is written, can be pre-ordered on Amazon, etc. This goes beyond having an opinion; at some level, she’s on the record already, even if it hasn’t been released yet (I wonder if quotes will be leaked from the book…4…3…2…).
<
p>A debate moderator should be like Caesar’s Wife – above suspicion. That’s why Olbermann and O’Reilly will never be moderators. Ordinary common sense should have told Ifill that at best there would be a perception that she was biased, and she should have ‘recused’ herself (there are LOTS of TV people in the world who want to moderate these debates!).
<
p>McCain’s people said the didn’t know about the book, and I beleve them as I don’t think they would have agreed to her if they did. This seems like a spectacular lapse in judgement from an intelligent and professional journalist who really should have known better.
I’m not surprised you were amazed. Wing Nut Daily isn’t exactly up to the standard of non-partisanship you’ll see from Ifill on Thursday.
<
p>It’s hilarious that you highlight the McCain campaign failing YET AGAIN in doing their research. Either they did the research and didn’t care about Ifill’s book for obvious reasons (it represents no conflict of interest), or they failed to do any research whatsoever, just like with the Palin pick.
Deval Patrick is a “Breakthrough”.
Colin Powell is a “Breakthrough”.
<
p>Michael Steele is no “Breakthrough”.
<
p>Just being black is not a ticket to get into Ifill’s tome on the future color palette of American democracy and leadership.
Leadership of all colors will continue to have a full spectrum of ideas.
Steele (I’ve watched him for years) simply doesn’t want to be out in front on anything. I certainly have not heard any original ideas from him (have you?). He is the very definition of a backbencher. I don’t think that Ifill intends to fill her book with placeholders or placekickers.
Below is the publisher’s description on Amazon.com. It looks like a historical sociology, not an Obama booster book (which would have been published before the election).
<
p>To say that Ifill is biased because she recognizes, like we all do, that Obama may represent a major departure in what it means to be black in American politics is just silly. Jim Lehrer seemed to be accepted as a moderator with no complain, yet he has made a career of the very sort of analyses Ifill’s book looks to be. Why the double-standard? You didn’t cry bloody murder when he moderated the debates last week.
<
p>
Why else would you think I was responding to you?
Laurel provided a significant link and useful addition to the debate. Is this another way of saying, “Laurel! Get off my lawn!”
You provide ZERO evidence to back your accusations. If slinging mud is the best you can do, the McCain campaign must be really desperate.
I think that Ifill – who is a competent journalist – may have to deal with an unfortunate perception regarding her impartiality. THAT’S mud?
<
p>The hysteria of your reaction – BAD newpaper!! (with no dispute of the facts); Lehrer wasn’t criticized! (and he hasn’t written a new book, either); MUD!!!! (an opinion isn’t mud just because it isn’t the same as yours) – tell me that the story is accurate in every detail, and you are unhappy because she won’t get to snark as much at Palin now.
socialjustice made the following accusation
but provided no evidence to back it up. The word “fact” is pretty strong. I think what socialjustice really meant was “I want to make people think she wrote a pro-obama book so i can smear her”.
Breakthrough: The selling of Candidates who can make great speeches… the Age of Obama. And the book was a chronicle of why inexperienced candidates with very little credentials but great TV appeal can make it big. Would the left be okay with someone writing this book to be a moderator for the debate?
<
p>Sadly, another case of no objectivity AND NO HONESTY. Anyone who believes they would have no objections to a similar story with a righty moderator who recently penned a book about the Republican candidate (and other Republicans) is lying to us or to themselves.
how clever of you.
But I’m partially swayed by Lauren.
<
p>Ifill wasn’t hiding that she was working on such a book, and one would expect McCain’s staff to brief him on that.
<
p>Still, she’s been around long enough to know she should have disclosed specifically to the McCain camp. WAY early.
<
p>”I’m writing a book (as, at any given time, are a bunch of people interviewing the presidential candidates); this one has an Obama hook; my view is that the book in no way would influence my questioning; but I realize it is possible that some would PERCEIVE it that way. So: I wanted to disclose and see if this raised any concerns in your campaign.”
<
p>By not doing so:
<
p>1. Perhaps McCain’s camp was blindsided, out of weak prep work, and she’s made herself part of the story, a no-no.
<
p>2. Perhaps McCain’s folks were crazy like foxes, and put a post-it in their notes to raise the issue a few days before the debate, thereby ensuring no tough questions to Palin.
why are you assuming she didn’t? it is just as likely that she did, camp mccains said “fine”, but have since decided to use the information in a slime campaign. his “obama is teaching kindergartners about sex” ad proves that he is willing to do anything to discredit obama, even if it is 2nd hand through a moderator who he probably thinks people will not see as impartial because she is black (but all white people are impartial regarding him, of course).
but disagree with “just as likely”
<
p>your scenario seems quite unlikely to me.
<
p>if Ifill did disclose in the manner i described, why wouldn’t she simply release the email or letter? she’d be in the clear.
<
p>and if it were a phone call, she could at least say “i spoke to so and so.”
<
p>i’d add a #3 to my comment above.
<
p>Scenario 3
<
p>3. McCain camp knows about several weeks before, just by staffers reading the WaPo. Quick chat – do we care? Collective shrug. Not blindsided, no plans to “use it” though.
<
p>Then they are in dire need to change the subject from economy. “Attacking the liberal media” has been a theme they’ve used with some amount of success, so they dust off this thing.
So John McCain who approved of the selection of Ifill after the book was published but now she too one sided. What utter crap, is Palin going to be that bad? Come on, she can’t be all that bad that you have to pretend to be upset just to have an excuse or complaint after the debate.
It is written, and is scheduled for release right after the election (presumably, Obama wins).
<
p>Actually, the non-partisan commission who runs the debates does the vetting, by-and-large – and this will be one more question in addition to financial conflicts, family memebers involvement, etc. – Did you just write a book and do you have a book deal?
<
p>This time around, I can see why that didn’t occur to them. It SHOULD have occured to Ifill, though.
do you have proof that everyone didn’t know about this up front? i’m from missouri – show me!
She should have had the INTEGRITY to recuse herself from “Moderation” duties. She has a vested/FINANCIAL interest is seeing to it that Obama/Biden win. I repeat, I had previously thought of Ms. Ifill as a journalist with integrity, which is generally a non-sequitur in this day and age. She no longer enjoys that status with this observer.
but it has zero credibility without something factual to back it up. especially since your short history here consists of nothing more than unfounded assertions and accusations.
From MSNBC – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26…
<
p>Money quote –
<
p>
PP is correct that the book is not out until next year. It’s never been a secret AP had an article on July 21st. A good source of all of the coverage in the press prior to the McCain agreement here and there have been many. It is obvious the is to temper expectations, it’s pathetic. Attacking moderator a day before, but it just goes along with the do anything McCain camp.
Replace Gwen Ifill and replace Tom Brokaw.
<
p>Brokaw’s antics meeting with Team McCain and briefing them how to better handle the media goes far beyond the fact that Ifill is writing a book.
<
p>Her moderation of the primary debates was sterling, and I could not detect a hint of bias toward Obama.
There are NO unfounded assertions. She has written a book that is scheduled to be released on Inaugural Day 2009. The book is complimentary to Barack Obama, among other people. It carries his NAME in the tile. Ms. Ifill has a vested interest in the success of the book, specifically a FINANCIAL interest. She wrote the book, I didn’t, McCain-Palin didn’t either. If she had the integrity and professionalism I believe she did, she would have recused herself from moderating the debate given the APPEARANCE of bias here. Obviously she didn’t and doesn’t and I no longer think of her as highly as I once did. The ad-hominem attacks of the Obamabots does nothing to change these facts.
McCain is desperate and is grasping at straws. After seeing today’s polls, he’s right to be scared.
Has that now become a synonym for “stuff that socialjustice doesn’t like”? Or maybe “stuff that’s unflattering or damaging to McCain”?
Or perhaps ad-hominem is what Sarah Palin thinks grits are made from.
McCain had this to say over the non-controversy socilajustice et al. are trying to stir up.
Big Daddy says it’s safe for little Sarah to go to the debate. So why are all of you crybabies still slobbering over the keyboard? Believe me, after Palin makes a fool of herself, you’ll be glad to have Ifill as a lingering scapegoat.
It’s called “working the refs”.
… but I suspect this is literally a case where they really didn’t know or notice about the book. Furthermore, I don’t think Ifill is nearly as left as people think. Unfortunately one of the memes that has been put out there is that if you work for PBS you must be liberal, Ray Suarez notwithstanding.
Has it not occured to you that maybe, just maybe, it is possible for Ifill to put aside her own views and still be fair? Whatever political opinions she has she would still have even if she had not written them down for public consumption. I’ve seen enough episodes of Washington Week on PBS to be confident in her ability to be truly “fair and balanced” (as opposed to faking it like a certain cable news channel). I’m suspicious that this is all part of the same lower-the-expectations strategy that the GOP seems to be playing and if it doesn’t go well for Palin they have their excuse to whine.
… relying strategically on Ifill giving Palin an out by being able to claim that she moderated in a liberally biased way, they’re in for a huge disappointment. Actually, I’m having such a hard time picturing I’m thinking it increasingly unlikely that they are counting on it.
It’s also occurred to me that the possibility of realizing something between a quarter-mil to a million-plus dollars is pretty hard to simply compartmentalize to the nether regions of ones mind.
<
p>Maybe she can do it. But the obvious potential for conflict is reason enough for the ethical person to bow out.