Yep, no bias in media...check.

Update: Looks like they realize they got caught. They're backpedaling. Here's the new quote:

The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. But it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.

Of course, they're not fixing their headline, so the smear stands.
 
garppalingibson1lo5.jpg


Summary of CG's questions 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? [misquoted Palin]

Summary of CG's questions to Obama:

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?

Question: Was Charles Gibson more biased toward Obama or Palin?
 
The parts of the Gibson/Palin interview that ABC edited out

From the Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, how does this editing stack up?

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.
 
Needless to say David, nuggle biscuit, how can you slant things so much? Oh, but that is ok, you are just offsetting that evil left leaning in the press,

1 - Obama was grilled by Charles Gibson- on July 23rd (interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY) on similar things he asked Palin. Charles asked him about his experience. He asked Barack very pointed, and difficult questions about the middle east - about Palestine and Israel, and what should be done about Jeruselem. Even to the point of asking where Obama thinks the US Embassy should be in that area of the world. Charles also asked about Iran, the threat of a bomb, how we should back Israel if they decide to bomb Iran.

Very hard questions (now, David, this thread is not about his answers - just on the fairness of the media).

If you wish to really check out various Obama interviews (he has quite a few of them, on various subjects, such as the economy, religion, just with Charles Gibson) you can go to ABC.com or YouTube and look them up for yourself.

2 - So - on Levin's Excerpts - (a little reality check - media interviews are edited - except for the ones that are broadcast live, and even then they are usually delayed a few seconds so the censors can leap in if they deem necessary) Two points - First - where is his source - I can't find it on the page - do you know? And second - this is hardly from an unbiased source, Levin is a proclaimed 'warrior for the right' - from his website - "He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands." Do you have an unbiased source for this?
 
Needless to say David, nuggle biscuit, how can you slant things so much? Oh, but that is ok, you are just offsetting that evil left leaning in the press,

1 - Obama was grilled by Charles Gibson- on July 23rd (interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAEnu89dxCY) on similar things he asked Palin. Charles asked him about his experience. He asked Barack very pointed, and difficult questions about the middle east - about Palestine and Israel, and what should be done about Jeruselem. Even to the point of asking where Obama thinks the US Embassy should be in that area of the world. Charles also asked about Iran, the threat of a bomb, how we should back Israel if they decide to bomb Iran.

Very hard questions (now, David, this thread is not about his answers - just on the fairness of the media).

If you wish to really check out various Obama interviews (he has quite a few of them, on various subjects, such as the economy, religion, just with Charles Gibson) you can go to ABC.com or YouTube and look them up for yourself.

2 - So - on Levin's Excerpts - (a little reality check - media interviews are edited - except for the ones that are broadcast live, and even then they are usually delayed a few seconds so the censors can leap in if they deem necessary) Two points - First - where is his source - I can't find it on the page - do you know? And second - this is hardly from an unbiased source, Levin is a proclaimed 'warrior for the right' - from his website - "He is also one of the top new authors in the conservative political arena. When your book is endorsed by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, you know you have a winner on your hands." Do you have an unbiased source for this?
Let me get this straight - you're attacking my source? :bowrofl:

Fine, show me the transcript from a different source and show me how Levin's site distorted the transcript.

By the way, if you watched the interview on Nightline, you would have seen the very words underlined and in bold.

You're not being intellectually honest, because you have to know that the transcript as I've posted it is accurate, or else you would have dug up the "correct" transcript and "pwned" me with it. You didn't do that, so all you're doing is obfuscating. I'm not interested in playing games.

Since you're obviously too lazy to do your own homework, and instead resort to wasting internet space with empty, ad hominem attacks, I've gone ahead and done your work for you.

Here's ABC's link - you'll find that the transcript matches what's on Levin's site. So he's not a liar, as you just implied.

And that interview wasn't "edited," it was hacked up. If you didn't see the interview on ABC, of course, you wouldn't know that.

Oh, and one more thing - how many vague yes/no questions was Obama asked compared to Palin?

Your cutesy little mask is slipping - your true colors are showing. You're really just a hack.
 
unbelievable is right

Dude. Read your own link.

Unbelievable.

The link was meant to show you that you were cherry picking... but I think you knew that.

UPDATE:

Well, hey…it turns out Gibson did ask Obama about hubris during their interview 10 months ago. At least the guy’s consistant:

UPDATE II:

Okay, I did find this interview that Charles Gibson did with Obama during his visit to Israel, last July. His questions are more probing, this time, and he does question Obama hard on his flip flop on the divided Jerusalem issue:

No, this was not a love-fest, but there was no condescension that I picked up on, either.

Also, did you notice that he asked Governor Palin the question of what her position would be, in the event that Israelis had to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, three times.

So she had repeat her answer, “I don’t think that we should second guess the measures that Israel should have to take to defend themselves for their security…” three times, which made her look like she was hedging.

He asked the same question to Obama only once, and got basically the same answer,”It is not my job, certainly as a candidate for President to tell the Israelis what their defense posture should be”…

“Thank you, Senator”.

The site I pointed to at least makes an attempt at intellectual honesty. You on the other hand... well cherry pick.

I'll quote shagdrum:

It is not "nit picking" to point out that someone is making an illogical and fallacious argument. If you except fallacious reasoning as valid, then you take away any chance of having a rational discussion, or of finding and or demonstrating a relevant truth.

Your initial argument is fallacious.
 
Let me get this straight - you're attacking my source?

Actually she also did one other thing. The first thing she did was attack your first argument as cherry picking, but you conveniently forget this point.

By the way, if you watched the interview on Nightline, you would have seen the very words underlined and in bold.

You're not being intellectually honest,

Man, talk about throwing stones when you live in a glass house. You complain about an edited interview that was then aired without the edits. If you ask me its misleading to complain about a show being edited when it was then shown as you said in its entirety. At least when you point it out on Saturday, leading others who didn't see either showing, into believing ABC was being biased.

I checked out Levin's site. At least he was honest enough to point out that this was the Thursday showing. He conveniently forgets to mention the Nightline episode though. Conveniently forget... man that happens a lot.
 
Actually she also did one other thing. The first thing she did was attack your first argument as cherry picking, but you conveniently forget this point.



Man, talk about throwing stones when you live in a glass house. You complain about an edited interview that was then aired without the edits. If you ask me its misleading to complain about a show being edited when it was then shown as you said in its entirety. At least when you point it out on Saturday, leading others who didn't see either showing, into believing ABC was being biased.

I checked out Levin's site. At least he was honest enough to point out that this was the Thursday showing. He conveniently forgets to mention the Nightline episode though. Conveniently forget... man that happens a lot.
So you're claiming that because they showed the entire interview on Nightline, hardly a primetime show, that excuses them from hacking up the interview that was shown on primetime?

That's similar to a newspaper printing a false headline on Monday, and then retracting it on page G29 on Friday.

No go, sorry. Still biased.
 
Nah, just a mercy screw from me at this point...

Mercy 'screw' oh debilitated digits? One of us sits at home both weekend nights, hoping for a little contact from the opposite sex, even if it is just in the form of quirky banter on a political thread. While the other one this morning is trying to figure out how to hide my (whoops) the handcuff marks and explain the rug burns.;)
 
Mercy 'screw' oh debilitated digits? One of us sits at home both weekend nights, hoping for a little contact from the opposite sex, even if it is just in the form of quirky banter on a political thread. While the other one this morning is trying to figure out how to hide my (whoops) the handcuff marks and explain the rug burns.;)
One of us isn't happily married, evidently. The other one doesn't have to go out all weekend and beg for it, or accept abuse in lieu.
:p
 
I thought that is what you did here on this thread - attack sources - you attack mine (FAIR) I attack yours (Levin). What fun! This is fun - right David, of the beguiling orbs.

I questioned the interview write up on Levin's site because I watched the Palin interview on the web yesterday morning and all those questions were in the interview. I am being intellectually honest, I saw the interview in its whole, and wondered why Levin was claiming 'gaps'.

Perhaps I should say that you are being dishonest - you saw the complete interview, shown on ABC, and then teased the members of this site with the 'edited out' post. You knew the interview was shown in its entirety - yet, you deliberately misled people on this site into thinking that some evil left bias was happening.

I never said that "Levin's site distorted the transcript." Nor did I say that he was a "liar". I just wanted to know his source, which isn't on his page. Please, don't put words in my mouth - you seem to be rather interested in putting things in my mouth...

At the top of the Levin site it says:
"EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)
THE BOLDED & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW"

Somewhat of a misdirection. Would it have been so difficult for you or Levin to add the words 'prime time broadcast'? (I still can't find what Aztec is saying about Levin mentioning timeframes - do you have that link Aztec?)

They only edited it on the prime - time show, as they often do for time constraints - Nightline (as you mentioned) and the web has the entire interview. If you read the transcript of the interview with Obama in July - there were about 5 minutes edited out of that interview that didn't appear on prime time broadcast TV (compared to what looks like about 3 minutes edited out of the prime time TV broadcast of the Palin interview).

Obama's interview included over 20 questions about the middle east. Half (that's 10 Foss) questions were essay type questions.

You can see the transcript here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=5433416&page=1

Gibson asked Sarah Palin 7 questions about the middle east, 5 were essay-type questions. You know where you can find the transcript - right?

Now, I admit it is just one interview for Palin - and there should be more to come (I hope so, I do watch them, and I am very interested in finding out more about her and her stands on various issues).

Your cutesy little mask is slipping - your true colors are showing. You're really just a hack.

I will have to look into that cutesy mask - The one with the cute little fox ears? The fuzzy tail too? Oh, that's right - first we have to deal with the whole 'mercy screw' issue - well, toothsome tush, I don't think its this 'hack' that is begging for anything.
 
One of us isn't happily married, evidently. The other one doesn't have to go out all weekend and beg for it, or accept abuse in lieu.
:p

I believe there might be two of us who aren't 'happily married, (at least I chose not to be married), and only one of us that is happily single.... judging by the amount of time you spend on your computer. Oh, believe me - the video really shows how much fun last night was...:p :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Did that 'action' include having to wear a paper bag?

Mr Monster- no longer the gentleman? I am disappointed. :(

I can trade these stupid barbs and innuendos all day, even if you gang up on me - eventually though - lets get back to bias in the media - rather than site case after stupid case (remember earlier I have admitted that of course, there is bias in the media - it is a given), and rehash proper debate technique (I don't think 'mercy screw' usually is considered proper debate technique - but, I could be wrong) maybe it would be more interesting to find out why there is bias in the media, and are there viable solutions?
 
I thought that is what you did here on this thread - attack sources - you attack mine (FAIR) I attack yours (Levin). What fun! This is fun - right David, of the beguiling orbs.

I questioned the interview write up on Levin's site because I watched the Palin interview on the web yesterday morning and all those questions were in the interview. I am being intellectually honest, I saw the interview in its whole, and wondered why Levin was claiming 'gaps'.

Perhaps I should say that you are being dishonest - you saw the complete interview, shown on ABC, and then teased the members of this site with the 'edited out' post. You knew the interview was shown in its entirety - yet, you deliberately misled people on this site into thinking that some evil left bias was happening.

I never said that "Levin's site distorted the transcript." Nor did I say that he was a "liar". I just wanted to know his source, which isn't on his page. Please, don't put words in my mouth - you seem to be rather interested in putting things in my mouth...

At the top of the Levin site it says:
"EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)
THE BOLDED & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW"

Somewhat of a misdirection. Would it have been so difficult for you or Levin to add the words 'prime time broadcast'? (I still can't find what Aztec is saying about Levin mentioning timeframes - do you have that link Aztec?)

They only edited it on the prime - time show, as they often do for time constraints - Nightline (as you mentioned) and the web has the entire interview. If you read the transcript of the interview with Obama in July - there were about 5 minutes edited out of that interview that didn't appear on prime time broadcast TV (compared to what looks like about 3 minutes edited out of the prime time TV broadcast of the Palin interview).

Obama's interview included over 20 questions about the middle east. Half (that's 10 Foss) questions were essay type questions.

You can see the transcript here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=5433416&page=1

Gibson asked Sarah Palin 7 questions about the middle east, 5 were essay-type questions. You know where you can find the transcript - right?

Now, I admit it is just one interview for Palin - and there should be more to come (I hope so, I do watch them, and I am very interested in finding out more about her and her stands on various issues).



I will have to look into that cutesy mask - The one with the cute little fox ears? The fuzzy tail too? Oh, that's right - first we have to deal with the whole 'mercy screw' issue - well, toothsome tush, I don't think its this 'hack' that is begging for anything.
Your entire point is moot because I already cited the ABC site, something you were too lazy to do. But you're apparently not too lazy to pontificate. Good luck with that. And you obviously didn't watch the primetime broadcast, or you'd have commented on how badly it was hacked up.

Oh, and there's a bit of nuance re: FAIR, because you were touting it as an objective watchdog source, which it isn't. I used Levin because it came up so quickly in my search. And it matches up with the transcript on ABC, so you're really just bitching because you like bitching.
 
I will have to look into that cutesy mask - The one with the cute little fox ears? The fuzzy tail too? Oh, that's right - first we have to deal with the whole 'mercy screw' issue - well, toothsome tush, I don't think its this 'hack' that is begging for anything.
Cutesy little mask refers to your attempt to seem above the fray instead of just an Obama worshiper, liberal hack.

As far as comparing notes on who has the better sex life - Don't worry, you'll find somebody someday. Everybody does. I hope you understand that I'm taken, and I'm sorry if I ever led you on, as that was never my intent. I hope that you can move on.
 
I realize to admit that you mislead readers of this thread (I believe that is now down to about 3) is a difficult thing to do - you mislead me - I had seen the interview on the ABC site (sweetheart - I watch very little prime time TV, and Friday night - really...), and then read your reference. I was politely asking about where the source for this reference was before I challenged it as being false. As far as I knew, i had seen the interview, and within the interview I had seen, there was no editing. I was taking the time to ask about sources, and checking facts, before I continued to debate my point. My question was in reference to timeline...

And, more to the point, it appears that you have nothing constructive to say about solutions to the problem of bias in the media -
 
I realize to admit that you mislead readers of this thread (I believe that is now down to about 3) is a difficult thing to do - you mislead me - I had seen the interview on the ABC site (sweetheart - I watch very little prime time TV, and Friday night - really...), and then read your reference. I was politely asking about where the source for this reference was before I challenged it as being false. As far as I knew, i had seen the interview, and within the interview I had seen, there was no editing. I was taking the time to ask about sources, and checking facts, before I continued to debate my point. My question was in reference to timeline...

And, more to the point, it appears that you have nothing constructive to say about solutions to the problem of bias in the media -
Once again, trying to take some sort of cheap shot at me about having a life on Friday night - really, you're some piece of work. Ever heard of TIVO? Sheesh. Besides, the primetime interview in question WASN'T on Friday night. Fact check much?

It appears you have nothing constructive to say, period. For someone who has nothing to say, you certainly use a lot of words to do it.

And quit using "endearing" terms when addressing me. It's actually making me queasy.
 

Members online

Back
Top