There was a lot of talk today about how tonight’s debate moderator, Gwen Ifil, recently wrote a book about Barack Obama that reportedly shows him in a pretty positive light. These people were concerned that this was proof she’d be unfair in tonight’s debate. I have only one word to say to that.
Unfounded.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
On Twitter
true,she gave no ammo to the suggestions.
I can’t say that she was an excellent moderator – or even good. For she certainly was lacking in about every aspect. But certainly was not partisan last night.
I agree she did fine and played it straight, but you miss the point about the objection, Michael. No one said that she was going to be unfair, it is about perception (that’s what conflict of interest means- that no matter how fair you attempt to be, people will be able to read something other than neutrality into your position.)
As an analogy- consider research done by pharmaceutical companies on a new drug vs. research done by an impartial third party with scientists who have no financial stake in the outcome. The latter is more meaningful because there’s no reason to doubt that the study was conducted in a manner that didn’t prejudge the outcome.
I thought she did and excellent job. At no time did she make herself part of the debate, unlike major network hosts in the past. I would prefer her to a moderator such as Matthews, Hume, or Olberman.
Christine; i’ve got a post coming up 3hours from now about this. It’s utterly unacceptable that people defend Iffil. It’s not about her showing her bias during the debate, it’s about her not living up to codes of ethics for journalists and basic principles they (we) should adhere to.
It’s a very simple, basic issue and the fact that it’s even being debated is embarassing and a sign that things will continue to go downhill in the coming years.
It’s completely acceptable to defend her Michael. I agreed with you at the time of your last post that it was a legitimate concern, but the debate has actually happened now. There was no sign of bias, therefore defending her from those who say she was going to be biased is completely normal.
You can’t simply say she was unethical and biased in terms of the debate and simply ignore the actual debate. Was there a legitimate point of concern over conflict of interest before the debate? Possibly. Is there any sign those concerns were realized? Not at all. She acted objectively, therefore claims of proffesional bias are unfounded.
No, it’s not. She acted in breach with journalistic codes of ethics. She broke the rules established for journalists. It’s that simple. End.of.debate.
Insane. My God, this owuldn’t have happened 20 years ago.
Ir.re.le.vant. Read.the.code.of.ethics.for.journalists. There are r.u.l.e.s. for journalists, once they (we) should ad.here.to.
There can be no debate because she acted in breach with said rules. Every journalist who goes to school to study journalism has been educated about this, and informed, and knows that whta Iffil did was wrong and unprofessional.
And yes, Minor in Journalism, so, no, I’m not merely giving an ‘opinion’ but a ‘fact.’
Michael, I completely agree that her failure to disclose and recuse herself from this event was a large breach of ethics. But my point is that there is then a second issue, of whether or not she then rose above her bias. I judge her guilty on count one, innocent on count two. The first issue is still serious, but it is still worth considering the second point since the debate did in fact go on. There’s a certain taint to the debate because of the breach of ethics, but it could have been far worse if she’d then either been overly aggressive toward Palin or overly conciliatory toward her in order to counter potential criticisms of her bias.
She mentioned at the beginning that no one else had reviewed her questions- but in my opinion, if there had been an independent committee review of them to insure that they were fair and balanced, they would have passed muster.
Ifill was acting as a moderator, she wasn’t doing any actual journalism as moderator. Was she critiquing a Bush SOTU speech which she helped write – no.
Seems some are drinking the Malkin Kool-Aid on this one. Lets look at some of MM links and how they take things out of context.
PBS Ombudsman: http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2008/09/ombudsmans_mailbag_27.html
MM fails to mention partisans on the other side who thought Ifill wasn’t a "true blue" Democrat.
Because Ifill didn’t talk to Democrats at the RNC convention she must be a Republican hack(?).
Forgot to include this MM gem:
Seems MM forgot to include the comment in full context as a full paragraph:
LOL – Attacking Ifill’s journalism ethics while ignoring MM’s ethics…
When I saw "MM" is my email alert to your comment, I thought you meant me!
I looked at the quote knowing I couldn’t have made it, but wondered anyway.
MM is short for Michele Malkin, and nobody questions MM as a journalist.
And when was the last time anyone invited Malkin to moderate a presidential or vice-presidential debate?
I also wonder if you remember the times Malkin has been threatened or targeted for assault by those who disagree with her ideology. I disagree with Malkin on many things, but your claim that she is given a pass from criticism is so bizarrely the opposite of the truth that you have to be called out on it.
In addition, partisans on both sides have an aversion to ‘context.’