Posted on 09/12/2008 7:55:47 AM PDT by IrishMike
ABC News anchor Charles Gibson may have thought he was giving a fair but tough interview to Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, in the first press contact with the new vice-presidential candidate.
But ABC did itself no favors. Viewers watching the dagger-and-sheath interview aired on national television last night and endlessly replayed on YouTube could easily draw a different conclusion. Unconsciously or not, Gibsons manner and language fairly dripped with condescension and disbelief.
It was the flourish of a trial attorney who chooses to substitute body language for substance, in persuading the jury that the witness is unworthy.
It was, to be plain, a distraction from what could have been an interesting conversation.
Most women, even now, are quite familiar with being talked over and not so subtly demeaned when they venture an opinion. It happens at dinner parties, in Washington and New York, where Gibson reigns as a network anchor, and even in educational classrooms.
It can happen to students who venture to Ivy League colleges without the benefit of a private preparatory school. They may never have heard about a Nash equilibrium or Pareto optimality. It doesnt mean they are stupid or without cunning.
There was no evident need to demand of Palin three times in a row how she could consider herself to have the necessary qualifications for the vice presidency. The hosts closing line was a debaters sally doesnt that take some hubris? Gibson asked, demanding again how a local mayor and Northern Exposure governor could properly consider national office.
Religious folk may also not chuckle, when the assertion that God has a plan for the world is recast as a claim that God is sending down Defense Department snowflakes for the conduct of the war in Iraq. Believing that the Iraqi people have a right to live in freedom, without Saddam Hussein, does not mean that Sarah Palin thinks she is Joan of Arc.
And then there is the issue of the Bush doctrine. Charlie Gibson seemed to delight in suggesting that Governor Palin did not know what the phrase meant. But there are Bush doctrines on any number of issues, not least, educational policy and free trade (which the Democrats have now abandoned).
Without saying so, Gibson had in mind the 2002 National Security Strategy statement, which noted that a country does not have to suffer a catastrophic attack before using the prerogatives of self-defense, and can act when a foreign attack is imminent.
But Gibson is wrong to suppose that the right of anticipatory self-defense began with George Bush. Indeed, it was put forward early in the history of the American republic, by Secretary of State Daniel Webster, in the so-called Caroline affair in 1837.
And strangely enough, this doctrine was carved out in the frozen North. In the middle of winter, American sympathizers crossed the Niagara River to help Canadians in their rebellion against the British Crown. The British burned their boat and sent one man to his death over the falls. Daniel Webster conceded that the British were permitted to use force because the "necessity of that self-defence was instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.
It would have been delicious if Governor Palin had responded with the name Daniel Webster. But she had the idea, and one may excuse even a national television anchor for not knowing the doctrines real origin.
In one last flurry, Gibson complained that he was lost in a blizzard of words here. The trope was unconscious, no doubt.
The television host, who came to broadcasting from Princeton and its Tower Club, via Washingtons Sidwell Friends School, would have been well served to ask some local folk (or even some big city women) what they thought of his navigation skills.
You’re right on the line of questioning, she is running for Vice President, we need to know if she can stand up to tough questioning. Although Gibson was very smug, ironic from a guy that reads news from a teleprompter for a living. My only problem is, where is the tough interview of Obama, and how about Biden? IF he wants to be a respected reporter he has to act like one, he is just a mouth for the DNC, and he was doing his best to stop the Palin steamroller.
I’ve sometimes watched interviews by all three of them. When their guest is a liberal or Democrat, they seem to fawn over them, and if they ask any hard-ball questions they look so apologetic and almost comical. When the guest is conservative, they hold nothing back and usually end up with a mixture of sarcasm and pity for the obvious imbeciles in front of them.
Momentary pause for mental image...
Don't you mean "for the next 12 years"? ;-)
What’s funny is no one has ever asked Obama if he is ready to lead and he is the TOP of his ticket?
Gibson lost me on the first question. His condescension rose and he looked down his nose at her. I wanted to throw a brick through the tv.
Brokow would have been better, since he would try to be scrupulously fair, given MSNBC's embarrasments. ..
Governor Palin seemed tense, which would come as no surprise, but disciplined and confident, even as Charlie Gibson looked at her with obvious disapproval during the interview.
I thought the Palin-Gibson interview segment we've seen was about what we would expect. Mild-manned Charles Gibson looking grim and disapproving, asking questions that he assumed would make her look uninformed, unqualified or stupid while Sarah Palin came off a bit tense but composed, knowledgeable and convincing. A win for Palin and another case of the leftists doing a lot more harm to their side than they did to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
Go, Sarah!
I don’t know how they will do the next interview. Gibson will have trouble hiding his bias regardless of the setting.
Gibson is a jerk.He could have engaged her in an interesting conversation about the issues. Instead, pompous and condescending, he chose to play prosecutor, and a dishonest one at that.
Gibson is a jerk.He could have engaged her in an interesting conversation about the issues. Instead, pompous and condescending, he chose to play prosecutor, and a dishonest one at that.
Now that they did it once (Palin subjected to lame MSM interrogation), they should insist that Palin will not answer questions that have not been put forth to 0be first.
Gibson looked like he hadn’t taken a dump in weeks. Fiber Charlie, Fiber! It’ll help pass the crap Charlie, that you pass to us as news!
Dang that Karl Rove, by choosing that woman-hating fob, Gibson to interview Sarah Palin, Rove has now managed to drive even more D & I women over to Mccain....next polls may well show that OBama has loss another hefty chunk of women voters!
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.