PBS and DNC puppeteers remove their unethical financially-connected attack-shill.
Weeks earlier
Posted on 10/03/2008 4:20:07 AM PDT by SkyPilot
PBS and DNC puppeteers remove their unethical financially-connected attack-shill.
Weeks earlier
She was a left wing hack that not only favored biden but slipped him the questions before the debate. She is a communist... look into her “baby cousin”. Palin still kicked both of those donkey a$$e$!
LLS
For the most part, when Biden was making his critical points, the camera was aiming straight at his face.
Not only were they obviously detracting from Governor Palin’s critical points, they wanted to ensure there was far less reusable footage.
The PBS presentation was all about 8-second news clips promoting Biden.
Recusal is to prevent even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Failure to do so when there is a clear conflict is simply indecent, and a pretense of impartiality against such an impediment should not be congratulated but the overall failure to recuse oneself should be condemned.
Also, this piece is clearly an opinion piece written in the first person, but it appears to me to be in "National News" section. That lack of journalistic integrity (shared today by the New York Times, which also has blatantly editorialized piece about the debate in its News section) is a large part of why these fishwrappers are failing businesses.
I noticed that.
How did Ifill get selected as moderator anyway?
no wonder the LA Times is going broke. Most of the market that they target can’t come up with the 50 cents it takes to buy their product, the rest of their potential customers don’t know how to read
She didn’t do a bad job. I think she knew she was being watched like a hawk. Gwen could have blow it by going after Sarah that is why she behaved herself.
Where is your discussion and anaylsis that she was not fair?
I dunno. I didn’t watch. To disagree with the LATimes just because you don’t like them or her or the fact that she is obviously an BHO supporter does not justify your “Quadruple Barf Headline from LA Times” editorializing.
I was looking for specifics and only got a personal bromide.
Sigh.
Well, Ifill had to be fair after we all found out about her book and loudly cried foul about it.
She was under intense scrutiny, I expected no less.
Why didn’t this “true journalist” disclose her book to the commission on her own?
And am I the only one who heard her remark to Biden after the debate when both candidates shook her hand? She said, “You did great”.
I was thinking the person who had the class and fairness was Palin.
I didn’t hear it; but I saw Palin and her family leave the stage and there was something there. I also saw Biden’s wife give Sarah a curt and short sarcastic answer which I didn’t not hear the exact exchange. It was Biden’s wife’s face that said it all. A lot of jealously there.
Well, looking at the replays, I don’t really believe that Ifill did anything unprofessional...she seemed fair to Palin. I didn’t watch the whole debate however.
She was extemely fair.
She was very professional in her conduct.
You weren’t listening last night.
He won the coin toss.
Ifill fits the LA Slimes model of Media Ethics: a lying cockroach.
Say, WHEN will the evil LA Times close its doors? Not soon enough!
I agree. I am glad that business came out because it certainly put her on good behavior.
It absolutely was better to have Ifill as moderator under the ethical cloud than to have someone else, who would in fact be just as biased, operating without that handicap.That said, moderators ruin debates. Why do they exist at all? You could divy up the time between the candidates using a chess time controlling the microphones, and just let the candidates talk about what they want to. That would be transcendently better than having a third party "positioned" above the person who is going to be vice President (even worse, president in the case of McCain v. Obama) of the United States.
The reason it is inevitable that moderators are inevitably "liberal" is simple. Moderators are journalists, and journalists define "objectivity" as what they themselves are - and they define "liberal" (or, synonym, "progressive") as exactly the same as "objective" except that the term "objective" is applied, always and exclusively, to working journalists. The same person with the same attitudes (George Stephanopolis, poster boy) can be a "liberal" operative or an "objective" journalist. There is no example of a conservative activist being recognized as "objective" by journalists.
My thoughts exactly....there was one he started answering I think before she finished asking!
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.