Skip to comments.Rumblings In The Jungle – Journalists Turn On Charlie Gibson
Posted on 09/12/2008 1:03:36 PM PDT by MindBender26
The Rumblings In The Jungle Journalists Turn On Charlie Gibson.
The phone lines are again rumbling in New York and Washington. The overriding question: Et Tu, Charlie?
I have spoken with a number of old TV journalist friends in last 12 hours. The haze of amazement hanging over the network newsroom is palatable. Its as if old truths have been proven wrong, old friends abandoned their dearest comrades, and we all awakened up to find out that 2 + 2 really does equals 7.
Charlie Gibsons (well, he has been Charlie for years, but since he apparently is not the man we all thought we knew, perhaps we should drop the familiarity.)
Lets start again.
Charles Gibsons interview of Sarah Palin last night was an embarrassment to ABC, journalism in general, television news in particular, and most importantly, to Mr. Gibson himself. It was not an interview. It was a debate, a sucker-punch, loaded debate where one side got to choose the questions, interrupt the other side, and then in conclusion, score the debate and give the audience their slanted interpretation of what it all meant.
The supposed interview was nothing more than a coast-to-coast, satellite-fed game of gotcha. ABC could have provided a valuable service to voters. Ms Palin is a newcomer to the national political scene and a realistic attempt to learn her views on important issues would have been very valuable. But last night there was little attempt to elicit Ms Palins beliefs on the problems of our time. The interview was dominated by loaded questions and sneers of disbelief whenever the Governor dared to give an answer not blessed by the New York-Washington liberal news cabal. Mr. Gibson acted more like a district attorney cross-examining a hostile witness than, dare I use the term, a journalist who understood America wanted to hear about Governor Palins positions, not his.
A polite note to Mr. Gibson: This was supposed to be an interview, not Law and Order, or, as it turned out, Low and Disorderly.
Witnesses in the network newsrooms say the reaction to the interviews airing was akin to the televised reading of the O.J. Simpson verdict. Back then, many African-Americans cheered, while many Whites shook their heads in disbelief.
Last night, the ever-so-hip young producers and news writers, (the ones fresh from the Ivy League thought factories,) cheered; Good Old Mr. Gibson was putting her in her place! How dare this . this . this small state governor . a Republican at that . how could she ever think she is good enough to be on a national ticket! How could she ever hope to compete against the likes of such Washington Power Moguls such as Obama, Biden, and Clinton, (either Clinton, take your pick.)
Ms Palin, that Governor, that hunter, that right-to-life that weirdo, (psssst did you know her daughter is pregnant,) well, she had the gall to try for national office without the approval of the national news media . or as they see themselves . the People Who Matter.
At ABC, the adolescent smirks ran as high as Sarah Palins approval ratings in Alaska.
But there were some who refused to join the chorus. The old guys, (yes, most were guys back then,) the guys who remember how it was years ago were upset and disappointed. These are the ones who remember when facts counted, not the reporters opinion.
You see, back about 50 years ago, many reporters were liberals, but a different kind of liberal. Many would take great pains to remove any liberal bias from their stories. The few conservatives, well, we too would ensure our story cut it down the middle, without conservative or liberal bias. We had all learned that in Washington there is plenty of blame, inefficiency, graft and crime to go around. You dont have to just single out one side of the political scale. The idea was to craft your story so the reader, listener or viewer couldnt tell which side of the political spectrum you were on. As one of the old Morrow Gang said, I try to balance my pieces so I get an equal amount of derogatory mail from both sides. When the raving lunatic hate mail is split evenly between the liberals and conservatives, I know I am going a good job.
Thats all changed now. Back when I started in TV, we would joke that the term Investigative Journalist was redundant; that all journalists were expected to be able to conduct a fair and impartial investigation, and we were expected to do so on a regular basis.
Today, its all advocacy journalism. Reporters think their stories shouldnt just give viewers the facts. They take steps to color their pieces so viewers act in a certain way. Is the typical reporter now willing to slant a story to help their cause or candidate? Absolutely. If fact, if their story fails to promote their beliefs over others, they see it as a failure.
Which brings us all back to Charl .. make that Mr. Gibson. According to the old rules, Mr. Gibson should have asked the questions, waited for the answers, then let us, the Great Unwashed make up our minds as to who is best qualified. But now we now all know that there is no doubt; Ms. Palin is unqualified. Charles Gibsons sneer says so.
Up until last night, Charlie Gibson was thought of as the nicest guy in television. Tonight, the quiet feelings among some are Charlie, we hardly knew ya.
Many of the older guys are not so much angry as they are disappointed. One from CBS was tempted to send Mr. Gibson an e-mail that began, Dear Dan,
The old Charlie Gibson was a great guy. We will miss him.
Gibson is a biased jackass. Sarah is qualified to be President. She earned it. Gibson is not qualified to be a reporter. He is where he is as part of a quota system (affirmative action) or political correctness, not because of any great talent.
Charlie Gibson, once a journalist , now a political hack............
Now there is an idea!
(forward him the full Lincoln/God quote)
It immediately tells readers they will be practicing “advocacy journalism” and deteriorates from there.
That was nice. What is the source?
Well written. You may be getting older but haven’t lost the skills.
Thought of freelancing for WSJ or similar publication?
they are all competitors. When they play Barack Obama’s softball questions to Sarah’s . backstroke Charlie too bad she gave you ratings.
I watched him years ago when he played second fiddle to Joan Lunden.
She's not running for that job though. The thought is she would step in in the event of an incapacitation of the POTUS. In reality she is a ticket balancing agent who a nominee will pick to score votes from a constituency or state. Happens all the time.
I wouldn't vote for her as POTUS with her current resume. If she had 1.5-2 terms as governor under her belt then I would most certainly consider her. Her positions on issues work for me but I would like to see more from her. I don't buy the foreign policy BS. I want a proven executive in the job because that's what POTUS is, the ultimate CEO job.
And didn’t you all like the artifice of Charlie wearing his glasses Ben Franklin style while wiggling his feet in annoyance? What an arrogant, condescending little prig!
They started out by trashing Bush and calling him a murderer and railing about how many billions of dollars were being wasted in Iraq. They would have none of my defenses of him and said he was the sorriest excuse for a Christian they had ever seen.
Then, the conversation started to get interesting. They both told me how badly they wanted Hillary! to win this time and how disappointed they were with her loss. Finally, they told me how much they love Sarah Palin -- so much so, that they will now vote for John McCain.
They were also outraged at the way Gibson handled the interview and said there's no way he would have done that if it were a man he was interviewing.
I know this is only two people, and it occurred in reliably red Indiana, but if it is happening here, I am sure it is happening other places as well.
I know I’m repeating myself, but.......
In defense of poor Charlie, he really is like a third-stringer. Hes 65 and got the job he currently has only after one guy died and the next one almost did.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
Where the MSM has been replaced by editors and players from scripted reality television.
That’s pretty much it now, isn’t it?
Smug, sneering, sexist, condescending elitist
Until Peter Jennings died, Charlie was probably destined to be a game show host.
MindBender26. Good enough for me.
Great insider post.
He acted very condescending, like she was a child and he the adult. It was very insulting.....
>>>>That was nice. What is the source?
Old friends with a fully charged cell phone battery, my phone number and one too many Scotches at lunch.
I really PO’d ABC didnt go after Palin for eating live kittens!
I have to admit, I used to really like Charlie Gibson but after last night’s performance my opinion has been significantly lowered. I will be going out of my way to avoid him, now...and that’s sad.
He only succeeded in making himself much smaller than the esteem I once held for him and dozens of people are telling me the same thing. Wait until he gets back from Alaska to see how much the lower 48 has cooled (to him).
When I took Newswriting (At both Newhouse and Annenberg), the key was Objectivity. Somehow, someway, cute, sarcastic pot shots has replaced honor among these Gen X’ers and Tweeners. This just goes to show you that playing Grand Theft Auto 15 hours a week does not contribute to the civility of our national discourse.
Please provide their names and their affiliations. This article contains no sources.
As such, it can't be taken seriously.
And Pilosi says they want to instill a "Fairness Doctrine....."
The Fairness Doctrine would make sense if journalism were objective. But the conceit of journalistic objectivity would have struck the founding fathers as ridiculous, for the simple reason that newspapers of the day were cacophony of competing opinion, with hardly any news which was entirely unknown to the public at the time of printing.
The conceit of journalistic objectivity derives solely from the commercial imperatives of the Associated Press and its member newspapers, and it is the propaganda power of the AP and its members alone which provides that conceit with what passes for its basis in fact. The conceit of journalistic objectivity is baseless in fact, and politically it is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.
We can assume that Gibson was operating under intense pressure to harass and provoke Gov. Palin in the hope of leading her into a gaffe. When no such moment emerged, ABC simply pretended Palin’s accurate summary of NATO’s responsibilities towards Georgia as a hypothetical member was warmongering. Still, pressure or no pressure, Gibson was certainly under no obligation to greet Palin with insinuating questions, false quotes and visible sneers. No doubt the scales fell from the eyes of a few more old media viewers after that performance.
The lefties in old media believes that it is their privilege to do so. That is why talk radio and the Internet are such an important balance against them.
I suspect you meant "palpable."
Turned him off years ago.
Why, Charlie? Why?
“That’s not the Charlie Gibson I knew”
Gibson’s dripping condescension was disgusting.
>>>> Please provide their names and their affiliations.
Sources burned cease to be sources.
>>>> As such, it can’t be taken seriously.
Do you know if Charles Gibson is aware of being held in contempt by some viewers and colleagues?
It is the same as if I said...”Let us all pray that we are doing good and right and in accord with God's plan”.... and they edited it down to...... “We are doing good and right and in accord with God's plan”..... and then represented THAT as an ‘exact quote’.
He also tried to pen her into making the ‘Obama Iwanna Obomb A Pakistan’ mistake. When she gave a “diplomatic” answer (what is required in such a circumstance) he pulled his “I got lost in a blizzard of words, was that a yes or no.”
Can you name one other male in journalism today who would go out of his way like Charlie did to make Katie Couric look like a competent journalist?
As a Charlie myself, I have to say that the condescending Gibson was a disgrace to the League of Charlies. At our next meeting, we will no doubt vote to demote him to a “Chuck.”
You are so right.
At, probably, about $12 Mil a year, who cares?
What a bunch of fools. McCain appears to have set these morons up. Boy, his fighter pilot thinking is showing through. This continues to be fun to watch.
Charlie, just ask your damn questions and let her answer. If you don’t like the answer, too bad! As someone said, it’s not a debate. It’s not a cross-examination.
Now, if you could just do the exact same thing to Obama that you did to Palin, we’d be happy.
“I have spoken with a number of old TV journalist friends in last 12 hours. The haze of amazement hanging over the network newsroom is palatable.”
Shouldn’t that have been palpable?
Ok. Then do these people truly not care about being respected? I know some are elitist.
Sarah Palin has neutered the liberal press.
What about that edited video clip of Sarah speaking about (dare I whisper it) God.
He edited the video and showed it as part of the interview. The audience got to see it to back up Charlie’s lie.
He did not give Sarah the opportunity to review that video and so he demanded she justify his lie.