# Palin Interview



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

Did everyone catch the Palin interview? There's something I noticed about the question about the Bush Doctrine. It seems to me that if Gibson was interviewing a current member of the administration or a member of Congress, he would have automatically restated what the Bush Doctrine was in simpler terms, not for the interviewee(who would already know what it was,) but for the benefit of the TV audience.

In this case, it seems like he intentionally held back the explanation(waiting several beats rather obviously) to test whether Palin was familiar with this particular policy. Do you think this is a legitimate journalistic tactic, to address the question or whether she's qualified for the job, or is it too much of the "gotcha" stuff, handing an easy video clip for her opponents?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

That interview was so obviously and clearly biased, it was sickening. I actually am not a huge fan of Palin, but Gibson's questioning came off as so confrontational, so terse, and so condescending, it was almost like he was trying to *prove* something he obviously believed.

For the first time in a long time, I found myself pretty disgusted at a very blatant bias on the part of the media. I will avoid Charlie Gibson's garbage like the plague in the future. The guy is a *****, capital P.


----------



## wessex (Feb 1, 2008)

I didn't catch the interview, but what was the Palin response? Deer in the headlights?

Regardless, the tactic seems to lack integrity and confuses the audience. If the journalist was looking to make a point, he should've at least done some sort of voice-over (e.g. "We asked Gov. Palin about the Bush Doctrine, which is essentially doing what Dick Cheney says...") prior to the clip. _60 Minutes _does this all the time.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

Why should Gibson treat Palin differently than any other politician he interviews? The GOP did such a good job creating this image of Palin it's now part of people's ideological belief structure. If you liked Palin going into the interview you found ways to believe she did great or reasons to excuse her poor performance. If you did not like Palin before the interview you most likely found reasons in her responses to justify not liking her.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

She tried to wing it a little, speaking about Iraq specifically, before he finally corrected her about the overall policy. She was a little flummoxed, but it didn't look so bad. Probably some 70% of the viewership wasn't familiar with the term, so she likely came off okay.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I think she did well, considering the nasty conduct of the interviewer. Contrast that with O'Reilly's excellent and fair "tough" interview of Obama.


----------



## SkySov (Mar 17, 2008)

If Biden gave responses like Palin I wonder what most of you would say...


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

If anyone can't deal with Gibson, regardless of his tactics, then I wonder if they're qualified to answer that phone at 3AM or any other decision that requires one to deal with smooth-talking tweps that have an agenda so obvious one can find it on television nearly every night.

It's not like anyone with experience expects these media celebrities to be doing anything other than getting good sound bites for the ratings and the bottom line.

It's old-school media 101: if you can't control your interviewer then you'll suffer whatever foolishness they put forth.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

wessex said:


> I didn't catch the interview, but what was the Palin response? Deer in the headlights?
> 
> Regardless, the tactic seems to lack integrity and confuses the audience. If the journalist was looking to make a point, he should've at least done some sort of voice-over (e.g. "We asked Gov. Palin about the Bush Doctrine, which is essentially doing what Dick Cheney says...") prior to the clip. _60 Minutes _does this all the time.


That would be caribou in the headlights.

I grow weary of this need to give Ms. Palin "special" treatment. If she cannot stand up to the questions of even the most belligerent of reporters, then she is not qualified to be vice president, let alone president. This is not peewee hockey, this is the tough yet nuanced world of international confrontation and politics. If the McCain people want her to develop the image of a qualified world leader then they had better stop screeching, "FOUL!" every time she is the subject of a negative or even offensive comment.

But that is just my opinion.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Who said she didn't stand up to him? I just said it's hard to look good when you're talking with someone who's being that ugly. I'm sure people who've argued with you here know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Who said she didn't stand up to him? I just said it's hard to look good when you're talking with someone who's being that ugly. I'm sure people who've argued with you here know what I'm talking about.


Even when you're being argued with, it's pretty hard to forget what the Bush Doctrine is. Assuming you knew or cared about it in the first place.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Concordia said:


> Even when you're being argued with, it's pretty hard to forget what the Bush Doctrine is. Assuming you knew or cared about it in the first place.


Really? Then why did Gibson get it wrong?

https://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODFkOTU3MjUwYWM4N2I1NzE2ZjU3NGQzZjg0MzYyZjk


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

The *Bush Doctrine* is a term used to describe various related foreign policy principles of United States president George W. Bush, enunciated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The phrase initially described the policy that the United States had the right to treat countries that harbor or give aid to terrorist groups as terrorists themselves, which was used to justify the invasion of Afghanistan.[1] Later it came to include additional elements, including the controversial policy of preventive war, which held that the United States should depose foreign regimes that represented a supposed threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat was not immediate (used to justify the invasion of Iraq), a policy of supporting democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the spread of terrorism, and a willingness to pursue U.S. military interests in a unilateral way.[2][3][4] Some of these policies were codified in a National Security Council text entitled the _National Security Strategy of the United States_ published on September 20, 2002.[5] This represented a dramatic shift from the United States's Cold War policies of deterrence and containment, under the Truman Doctrine, and a departure from post-Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

In an age of "gotcha politics" and media partisanship I would want to clarify the meaning of any nebulous concept before signing off as agreeing to it. The "Bush Doctrine" DOES NOT have a single, unified, agreed upon meaning. It was perfectly sensible to try to get some sort of clarification on meaning to prevent members of the media from defining support for the Bush Doctrine as advocacy for killing orphans and starving pregnant mothers.

This article is from Fox New, so of course it can't be true, but the point is that the meaning has changed over times, and even journalists have used it in a variety of ways.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Gibson's version of the "Bush doctrine" was indeed flat-out wrong, unless Bush's doctrine is exactly the same as every other president's, ever, except maybe Jimmy Carter. Of course since the "Bush doctrine" is some made-up thing attributed to him, it's not surprising.

A very unfair question.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

And the "Holy War" question, I cannot imagine that was anything but bad faith on his part: https://volokh.com/posts/1221187681.shtml


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

If Gibson went soft on her there would have been outrage from the Left.

If Gibson went hard on her there would have been outrage from the Right.

I think he took a middle course that was appropriate...he tested her, but it wasn't a terribly difficult test. Overall I think she faired ok. I was surprised the Bush Doctrine question threw her for a loop, she really did look like she didn't have a clue, but did recover in the end.

Her remarks on Georgia I didn't think made her look good, like she just didn't have the gravitas to be talking about the subject in a assertive manner. Like sure, let's go to war, what's the big deal?

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

A bit difficult to define the "Bush Doctrine" as it is not yet established history. Furthermore, every Tom, Dick and Harry has his/her own opinion so there's really no specific definition. Is it the doctrine of preemptive strike? Is it that states aiding terrorists will be treated as terrorist states? If so, what is the solution/response? 

I thought Gibson's attitude was a bit snobby. The question about hubris was itself pompous hubris on his part. I'll never forget during the 2004 Bush/Kerry town hall debate when the Pres. rolled through Gibson when he was trying to stop him during mid-answer.


----------



## trimaldo (Jul 29, 2007)

Concordia said:


> Even when you're being argued with, it's pretty hard to forget what the Bush Doctrine is. Assuming you knew or cared about it in the first place.


 Obama got it wrong!


> ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Sen. Barack Obama lobbed another verbal grenade at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Thursday, continuing a feud that first erupted at Monday night's Democratic presidential debate. In a conference call with reporters, Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> A bit difficult to define the "Bush Doctrine" as it is not yet established history. Furthermore, every Tom, Dick and Harry has his/her own opinion so there's really no specific definition. Is it the doctrine of preemptive strike? Is it that states aiding terrorists will be treated as terrorist states? If so, what is the solution/response?
> 
> I thought Gibson's attitude was a bit snobby. The question about hubris was itself pompous hubris on his part. I'll never forget during the 2004 Bush/Kerry town hall debate when the Pres. rolled through Gibson when he was trying to stop him during mid-answer.


Tell Tony Blair we're going it alone!


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I am not sure I have ever seen old Charlie adopt such a hostile interview style with anybody else. I certainly could not picture him staring stone-faced at any of those other dogs, throwing questions at them like some sort of prosecutor, interrupting and cajoling.

Funny thing is, I am not even fired up enough about either candidate to even bother voting, but that does not change the fact the he behaved like a real douchebag.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

gnatty8 said:


> I am not sure I have ever seen old Charlie adopt such a hostile interview style with anybody else. I certainly could not picture him staring stone-faced at any of those other dogs, throwing questions at them like some sort of prosecutor, interrupting and cajoling.
> 
> Funny thing is, I am not even fired up enough about either candidate to even bother voting, but that does not change the fact the he behaved like a real douchebag.


...but then, he never called her a pin-head nor did he tell her to, "shut up," like some other loofa loving television news interviewers sometimes will.

buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

O'Reilly's interviews with Obama and Clinton are the best, bar none. You can't deny that. Well, you can, obviously, but you can't back it up.


----------



## A world beyond fleece (Feb 20, 2008)

*Liars? Or just indifference to truth?*

Don't you McCain-Palin supporters ever feel a bit embarrassed by the lies your folks are telling?:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> A bit difficult to define the "Bush Doctrine" as it is not yet established history. Furthermore, every Tom, Dick and Harry has his/her own opinion so there's really no specific definition. Is it the doctrine of preemptive strike? Is it that states aiding terrorists will be treated as terrorist states? If so, what is the solution/response?


That's precisely why I think it was fair to lob the question in the manner Gibson did, to test how she might interpret it. In the end she didn't seem to have any interpretation which was even more telling.

As an aside, a great point made by a late relative of mine was that the Iraq was wasn't preemptive, but rather preventative. In this light the application of the Bush Doctrine may be even more difficult to rationalize.

-spence


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Yes, how dare anyone _not_ be thoroughly fluent in made-up, self-serving, conveniently-ambiguous terminology contrived by professional propagandists masquerading as journalists? Why, it's unthinkable!

(What exactly was the "Clinton Doctrine"? Did the chattering class ever get around to defining that one? I seem to remember a few retaliatory military strikes and something about the policy of the US government being regime-change in Iraq, and I have a vague recollection about a military action to depose a dictator halfway around the world who posed no security threat to the US. But these things have a way of disappearing down the memory hole, so it's hard to tell.)


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A world beyond fleece said:


> Don't you McCain-Palin supporters ever feel a bit embarrassed by the lies your folks are telling?:icon_smile_wink:


And when exactly did you stop molesting your nephew? ;-)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree that there is no formally defined "Bush Doctrine." I don't see what the big deal is. The national media (most of it) has made its choice and will defend it vigorously. Gibson, as pushy as he was at times was a lot more neutral than most of the rest of the media.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> That's precisely why I think it was fair to lob the question in the manner Gibson did, to test how she might interpret it. In the end she didn't seem to have any interpretation which was even more telling.
> 
> As an aside, a great point made by a late relative of mine was that the Iraq was wasn't preemptive, but rather preventative. In this light the application of the Bush Doctrine may be even more difficult to rationalize.
> 
> -spence


Whatever you may think of the "Bush Doctrine" the question as asked was ridiculously open ended. As such, any answer would have been spun as the emphasis would have been placed more on the question. Gibson knew what he was doing. He could have asked what she thought of the preemptive war notion put forth in the Bush Doctrine or some other specific question. As noted above, even Obama seemed to allude to the Bush Doctrine in a way that befitted him at the moment.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

By way of comparison, here are the questions Gibson asked Senator Obama during his interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your "winning" breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor's [Clinton] speech?

as compared to Palin:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you're seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoting her prayer]

Biased? -- Nah.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> By way of comparison, here are the questions Gibson asked Senator Obama during his interview:
> 
> How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
> How does it feel to "win"?
> ...


The first batch of questions seem like the kind one would ask a person applying for the position of a community activist or social worker while the second batch of questions seem like the kind of grilling a candidate for the position of POTUS should face so I guess since we all know (whether we admit it or not) that she is going to be the next VP, she deserves to be grilled after all she would be facing Hillary Clinton in 2012 for the position of POTUS. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The first batch of questions seem like the kind one would ask a person applying for the position of a community activist or social worker while the second batch of questions seem like the kind of grilling a candidate for the position of POTUS should face so I guess since we all know (whether we admit it or not) that she is going to be the next VP, she deserves to be grilled after all she would be facing Hillary Clinton in 2012 for the position of POTUS. :icon_smile_big:


I agree. The problem lies not with the second batch of questions, but the first. Although the disparity is its own problem.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Watch the real interview and not the questions posted in this thread.






Assuming this is the proper context, I don't see any bias, and the assertion that Gibson was harder on Palin than Obama is bogus.

-spence


----------



## BobbyR (Aug 9, 2008)

Spence said:


> Watch the real interview and not the questions posted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've seen some very bias interviews over the last few weeks and this was not one of them.

Ask her some tough questions, she could be the Vice President.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Barack's Interview with Gibson compared to Palin's Interview with Gibson


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Spence said:


> Watch the real interview and not the questions posted in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are you for real?

Charlie Gibson is nauseating. He is a biased, arrogant, but totally vacuous twat. He should be asking me what size shoe he can get me to try on, or if I enjoyed my stay with the hotel.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

There is also some evidence that Palin's responses were edited to remove material that made her look better.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

^ Would not surprise me at all. The MSM in the United States are very, very dangerous. If this turns out to be true, we should call for their heads! They should not be permitted to undermine the democratic process like this.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

BobbyR said:


> I've seen some very bias interviews over the last few weeks and this was not one of them.
> 
> Ask her some tough questions, she could be the Vice President.


That is a fair point. The bias to which I referrred earlier would be slam dunk right if the Obama questions had been presented by ABC/Gibson, but they (I think) were those presented by Fox/Stephanopoulos. It is not fair for Gibson to have to pull punches just because Stephanopoulos chose to. Nonetheless, I would hope that everyone would agree that it is inappropriate to say the least for an interviewer to horribly misquote an interviewee and then invite the interviewee to comment on the misquotation, which is exactly what Gibson did.

That said, Spense's assertion that ABC was not harder on Palin than Fox was on Obama simply cannot withstand objective scrutiny.

And Terpoxon is right. ABC has some serious egg on its face right now.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

When will those idiots learn that this kind of dishonesty is bound to come out on the internet nowadays.

I try to be a centrist, but I worry about the left wanting to censor talk radio and other communications so that ABC, NBC and CBS are the only voices heard.


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

I think its the same principle as lawyers asking questions they know will raise objections. Sometimes just planting the seed is enough. Let's face it, not that many people read an entire newspaper, or even watch a whole newscast every night. That's why papers print retractions on page 37, not on page 1. If a network has an agenda, they do a hit piece, and if they get called on it, they hope that fewer people will see them get caught than saw the original


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Terpoxon said:


> I think its the same principle as lawyers asking questions they know will raise objections. Sometimes just planting the seed is enough. Let's face it, not that many people read an entire newspaper, or even watch a whole newscast every night. That's why papers print retractions on page 37, not on page 1. *If a network has an agenda, they do a hit piece, and if they get called on it, they hope that fewer people will see them get caught than saw the original*


Unless you're Dan Rather.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I haven't read all of this thread yet, but, She needs to be able to answer hard questions and I didn't like all of her answers. But what can somebody say for the lack of sound thinking by picking a looser for Vice President as Obama has done. Every time Obama's choice for VP has run for President he was out of the race practicaly at the beginning, so he would be one of the last people I would even think of, if thought of at all. Obama has voted very little when he has had the chance to- how can he be qualified when he can't even make up his mind to vote yay or nay with all of the opportunity that he has had in politics? Palin has made many many discisons, whereas, Obama can't make a discison and keeps changing his mind and his running mate is a looser.

I'm voting for Palin.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

*Article on how ABC edited the interview to make Palin look bad*

"ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview"


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Unless you're Dan Rather.


The reason that the Rather/Bush Documents issue garnered so much attention is that Rather refused to back down when he was clearly wrong. The producer of the piece to this day claims that she and Rather were right. If they would have admitted they were wrong, or that they simply missed the fact that the documents were forged at the beginning the story would have went away quickly.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I was watching Rather one time, after he was fired, talking about the Iraq war, and I realized it was more important for him, when he was the anchor, to tell lies and make lots of money than to tell the truth.

I'm sure, Rathers replacement, Katie pays lots of money for tax accountants to find every loop hole they can find so she doesn't have to pay higher taxes. So much for her belief in government welfare programs. And, what a hypocrite that proves her to be.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> That said, Spense's assertion that ABC was not harder on Palin than Fox was on Obama simply cannot withstand objective scrutiny.


That was not my primary assertion, rather, that the questions posted in this thread didn't align with the two Gibson interviews that I saw.

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Spence said:


> That was not my primary assertion, rather, that the questions posted in this thread didn't align with the two Gibson interviews that I saw.
> 
> -spence


I stand by my statement that the bias is obvious. I cannot explain your apparently flawed recollection, Spence.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> I stand by my statement that the bias is obvious. I cannot explain your apparently flawed recollection, Spence.


A blog post about camera angles? Come on...

Gibson has interviewed Barack Obama more than once. In the interview in question, Obama had just won the primary and the purpose of the interview was to understand how he would lead the party. Which makes sense as this would be the logical question viewers would want information on.

For instance in this July interview, Gibson is pushing Obama pretty hard on real issues in "context" of his trip to Israel.






The Palin interview was indeed a test, but considering she has risen from nowhere as a result of a selection (rather than election) people want to know if she really has the knowledge and experience to be VP or even the President. Again, context is important.

Gibson was catering to the voice of the customer, the viewers, as ABC is a business after all.

This entire argument is comparing apples and oranges to generate more fake outrage, and pimp the "liberal media bias" argument the GOP is banking on.

-spence


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

What about their creative editing of her answers? Was that catering to the customer as well?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Spence said:


> A blog post about camera angles? Come on...
> 
> Gibson has interviewed Barack Obama more than once. In the interview in question, Obama had just won the primary and the purpose of the interview was to understand how he would lead the party. Which makes sense as this would be the logical question viewers would want information on.
> 
> ...


Good question, Terpoxon.

Spence, your explanation would be more convincing if you can point to any MSM interview of Obama that was similarly tough at any point in the campaign. The MSM has treated the One with kid gloves. Again, I don't think Gibson's interview of Palin was at all out of line, except for the very disturbing misquotation. And while the Bush Doctrine question was a bit of a trick question for all the reasons noted, I'm reasonably confident that its "tricky" nature was grounded in Gibson/ABC sloppiness rather than bias.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Good question, Terpoxon.
> 
> Spence, your explanation would be more convincing if you can point to any MSM interview of Obama that was similarly tough at any point in the campaign. The MSM has treated the One with kid gloves. Again, I don't think Gibson's interview of Palin was at all out of line, except for the very disturbing misquotation. And while the Bush Doctrine question was a bit of a trick question for all the reasons noted, I'm reasonably confident that its "tricky" nature was grounded in Gibson/ABC sloppiness rather than bias.


Even taking Fox out of the equation, issues like the Rev. Wright got tremendous air time and none of it was in Obama's favor. I think to a large degree the media was captivated by Obama's rock star appeal, but you can't just assume bias is always the reason. There's money to be made and the networks are shifting their business models to cash in.

Obama has been in the news for four years now and we have one data point, one interview with Palin and people are trying to come to a conclusion that is clearly based on the assumption that the media is biased...which is also biased isn't it?

-spence


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Spence said:


> Even taking Fox out of the equation, issues like the Rev. Wright got tremendous air time and none of it was in Obama's favor. I think to a large degree the media was captivated by Obama's rock star appeal, but you can't just assume bias is always the reason. There's money to be made and the networks are shifting their business models to cash in.
> 
> Obama has been in the news for four years now and we have one data point, one interview with Palin and people are trying to come to a conclusion that is clearly based on the assumption that the media is biased...which is also biased isn't it?
> 
> -spence


Have the MSM looked into O's financials with the same scrutiny that they have drilled into Palin's? Not a chance. In fact, as Camille Paglia (who supports O) and others have noted, not at all. Former CBS reporter (28 years) Bernard Goldberg nailed it in his book, "Bias." Again, the problem isn't that the MSM is hard on Palin -- the problem is that they continue to be soft on O.
And really, how do you explain ABC's editing?


----------

