Potentially an issue with the VP debate

[MARIS61]

The older generation plays the victim card and race card constantly, while the younger generation seems above race.

It has been my experience that the exact opposite is true.

 

[Denny Crane]

It has been my experience that the exact opposite is true.

In what sense?

Obama isn't sounding a bit like Jesse Jackson. Both ran for president.

 

[Nikolokolus]

As long as both sides are unhappy with Ifill after the debate is over, I'll take it as a sign that she performed her job correctly. Beyond that she's one of the few journalists I'd trust to moderate a debate even though she might have a financial (or rooting) interest.

 

[MARIS61]

You see, when you lower expectations, any reasonable performance is seen as a plus.

And, as Republicans have demonstrated by lowering their alreading embarrassingly low standards and electing Bush twice, you can put your country in imminent danger by doing so.

8 years ago, not even the most strident Democrat could imagine how bad Bush would be.

Now, it's generally accepted by both parties that he has lowered the bar beyond ground level.

And they're pissed. Palin's incompetence and ignorance has doomed what tiny chance McCain had to make this a contest.

He has shown he cannot be trusted to make serious decisions for America.

 

[Minstrel]

Everyone likely has a rooting interest. I'm sure Lehrer will vote for a candidate, which indicates he has a preference. Ifill surely has a rooting interest...that's not an issue.

Her having a financial interest could be an issue, but I doubt the financial impact for her is very large. Being objective doesn't mean not having a preference. It means not letting that preference dictate how you do your job. From watching Washington Week In Review, she doesn't seem to let political bias affect her analysis. Moderating a debate is simply an extension of analysis...asking questions meant to illuminate the issue of who would make a better President.

 

[Denny Crane]

Everyone likely has a rooting interest. I'm sure Lehrer will vote for a candidate, which indicates he has a preference. Ifill surely has a rooting interest...that's not an issue.

Her having a financial interest could be an issue, but I doubt the financial impact for her is very large. Being objective doesn't mean not having a preference. It means not letting that preference dictate how you do your job. From watching Washington Week In Review, she doesn't seem to let political bias affect her analysis. Moderating a debate is simply an extension of analysis...asking questions meant to illuminate the issue of who would make a better President.

Dr. Pepper just came out my nose.

 

[Minstrel]

Dr. Pepper just came out my nose.

That must be painful.

 

[barfo]

Dr. Pepper just came out my nose.

I gather that his miniaturization machine is working, and that he has not cured his masturbation addiction. You should try to dislodge him with a finger.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That must be painful.

Sorry, dude. I watch Washington Week in Review religiously, and I find it hard to believe anyone sees anything about it as unbiased.

Maybe she seems a little calmer than most hosts/hostesses, but she's got a round table full of left leaning talking heads and she's one, too.

That these people are only slightly right of Bill Moyers doesn't make them even close to center.

 

[Denny Crane]

I gather that his miniaturization machine is working, and that he has not cured his masturbation addiction. You should try to dislodge him with a finger.

barfo

That would be Sgt. Pepper.

 

[MARIS61]

I gather that his miniaturization machine is working, and that he has not cured his masturbation addiction. You should try to dislodge him with a finger.

barfo

You are making the sexist assumption that Dr. Pepper is a man, not a woman.

If the good Dr. is a woman, inserting a finger will only exacerbate the situation.

 

[Minstrel]

Sorry, dude. I watch Washington Week in Review religiously, and I find it hard to believe anyone sees anything about it as unbiased.

No need to apologize for disagreeing with me.

That these people are only slightly right of Bill Moyers doesn't make them even close to center.

I don't think you've understood my point. My point is not that she's in the center, politically. That's not what "objective" means. Objective means leaving your own bias out of the analysis you provide. I think she's pretty objective in analyzing Democrat and Republican politicians.

Of course, true "political objectivity" is fairly impossible. There has to be a standpoint from which you analyze. Her worldview is surely a progressive one, so she analyzes from that standpoint...which will tend to agree with progressive policies more than conservative ones. My real point is that she doesn't strike me as attempting to carry out an agenda. Most talk show hosts are attempting to create a narrative...Republicans good/Democrats bad or Democrats good/Republicans bad. Ifill doesn't do that, in my view. Her analysis is influenced by her worldview, so is biased in that sense, but it is not biased by an agenda.

 

[ehizzy3]

My take is that the book is being mis-represented as being pro-Obama. It's not from everything I've seen.

There's been a real conflict in the black community between generations - the older group that lived through the civil rights movement of the '60s, and the young generation that didn't. The issues are deep: the younger generation uses the "N" word as a term of endearment, while the older generation thinks the word should be banned or use it an outright insult. The older generation plays the victim card and race card constantly, while the younger generation seems above race.

Her book is about this struggle, and Obama does represent a real change for the community. It's fair, and it doesn't mean she's rooting for him to win, though she probably is.

THANK YOU...the book is not about obama and is not pro obama. it doesn't say "vote for obama if you want change". its pro african american politicians and their struggle to get where they are and what they had to go through...and if she didn't include obama in her book. she would be a fool.

 

[Denny Crane]

No need to apologize for disagreeing with me.



I don't think you've understood my point. My point is not that she's in the center, politically. That's not what "objective" means. Objective means leaving your own bias out of the analysis you provide. I think she's pretty objective in analyzing Democrat and Republican politicians.

Of course, true "political objectivity" is fairly impossible. There has to be a standpoint from which you analyze. Her worldview is surely a progressive one, so she analyzes from that standpoint...which will tend to agree with progressive policies more than conservative ones. My real point is that she doesn't strike me as attempting to carry out an agenda. Most talk show hosts are attempting to create a narrative...Republicans good/Democrats bad or Democrats good/Republicans bad. Ifill doesn't do that, in my view. Her analysis is influenced by her worldview, so is biased in that sense, but it is not biased by an agenda.

I don't think she's objective in the least. She's trained in the NYT and Washington Post school of journalism (worked at both) and went to an even further left outlet at PBS. Her show has a Green Party bias to it that is obvious to anyone who's been exposed to that kind of thing.

 

[maxiep]

Man, it just gets worse

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVAeSkYI2HWjkaX11O2cv09Zf73wD93I1TVO1

The host of PBS' "Washington Week" and senior correspondent on "The NewsHour" said she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about the book.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

If I'm the dems this VP debate scares the hell out of me. They are doing well in the polls and a slip up by Biden right now would be huge. Biden has a problem of putting his foot in his mouth. If I'm the Republicans I figure out some comments that provoke him into a mistake.

 

[Stepping Razor]

I don't think she's objective in the least. She's trained in the NYT and Washington Post school of journalism (worked at both) and went to an even further left outlet at PBS. Her show has a Green Party bias to it that is obvious to anyone who's been exposed to that kind of thing.

Just out of curiosity, who would you name as a journalist representative of the moderate center?

I'm just wondering what kind of scale we're working on here, if the NYT/WaPo are left, PBS is far left, and Gwen Ifill (!?!) is far, far left.

SR

 

[Denny Crane]

Just out of curiosity, who would you name as a journalist representative of the moderate center?

I'm just wondering what kind of scale we're working on here, if the NYT/WaPo are left, PBS is far left, and Gwen Ifill (!?!) is far, far left.

SR

There isn't. The bulk of the US media is left of the people, and the rest is right of the people to compensate.

(the people being mostly moderate center, and not as polarized as the issue debates make it seem).

You think it's good to recognize this "truth" and take it into consideration instead of pretending it's not true?

 

[Stepping Razor]

There isn't. The bulk of the US media is left of the people, and the rest is right of the people to compensate.

(the people being mostly moderate center, and not as polarized as the issue debates make it seem).

You think it's good to recognize this "truth" and take it into consideration instead of pretending it's not true?

I think it's entirely possible that there's no one right exactly at the center... I couldn't think of someone I'd cite either.

I totally disagree that the bulk of the media (particularly the ones you mentioned above) tilt to the left. The NYT Editorial Page definitely leans left; the news coverage definitely doesn't. Similarly, at least since Kay Graham died, the WaPo Editorial Page definitely leans right; the news coverage doesn't.

The two most critical decisions of the last 10 years in the United States, in my view, were the election of George Bush in 2000 and the authorization of war in Iraq in 2003. No other institution in American society was more responsible for those two things happening than the New York Times. The old right-wing claims about the NYT's left-wing bias are hugely useful in political terms, and maybe it was true 30 years ago, but it is clearly not true now.

SR

 

[Real]

At the very least she shouldn't have been concealing this information from the Commission of Presidential Debates. I thought that telling the commission that you're writing a book like that would be common sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think it's entirely possible that there's no one right exactly at the center... I couldn't think of someone I'd cite either.

I totally disagree that the bulk of the media (particularly the ones you mentioned above) tilt to the left. The NYT Editorial Page definitely leans left; the news coverage definitely doesn't. Similarly, at least since Kay Graham died, the WaPo Editorial Page definitely leans right; the news coverage doesn't.

The two most critical decisions of the last 10 years in the United States, in my view, were the election of George Bush in 2000 and the authorization of war in Iraq in 2003. No other institution in American society was more responsible for those two things happening than the New York Times. The old right-wing claims about the NYT's left-wing bias are hugely useful in political terms, and maybe it was true 30 years ago, but it is clearly not true now.

SR

The WaPo and NYT editorial pages lean left, and the news coverage is done by zealots who want to be part of the editorial page.

The NYT bashed Clinton pretty hard, but I chalk that up to NAFTA, GATT, ending welfare as we know it, MFN for China, and a whole host of other republican ideas he implemented.

The "news" is absolutely biased, and filled with opinion or quotes to advance an opinion. We can talk about global warming in another thread, but it's a good example. Some scientists say it's man made and others say man has nothing to do with it. If a news article quotes the former kind of scientists heavily and the latter kind out of context or not at all, it skews the news.

Another good example is an AP story yesterday. Consumer confidence report is up for the first time in a long time, surprising economists who predicted otherwise! AP's headline and gist of the story is "it's at it's lowest in 8 years and remains so" but they did get to the report being up in paragraph 10 or 15 (literally).