The Problem with Iffil: A Sign of the Times
Most remarkable about the elite media’s and others’ (including our very own Michael Merritt) defense of Gwen Iffil moderating yesterday’s debate between the two candidates for vice president is that they seem to miss the point completely: the point was not whether or not she would prove to be a biased moderator. Whether she would show her bias during the debate.
Rather, the point was that a professional should never put herself in the position Iffil put herself in.
When you write articles in favor of one specific candidate, and even a book about him / in which he plays a prominent role, you do not agree to moderate a debate between that candidate and any other candidate. That’s not even up for debate. That’s being a professional. Whether you would be able to hide your bias or not is completely irrelevant. What matters is that you are a journalist and that you have to adhere to certain principles and codes of ethics.
A professional journalist should never, and I do mean never, put him or herself in Iffil’s position. It’s unacceptable.
Sadly, the fact that so many people either don’t grasp the above or simply don’t care about it is a sign of the times; things are changing. Professional journalists aren’t professional journalists anymore. They are ‘opinion-makers.’
Journalism is being thrown out the door in the U.S. right now. It will be interesting to see whether it will recover in the years ahead or whether it will simply have to be replaced by other tools to inform rather than influence.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
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.
Yep, that’s actually what I was getting at in my comment in the other thread. There are two separate issues: was it a conflict of interest and breach of journalistic ethics for Ifill to have been in this role (yes, resoundingly) and was she able to ask reasonably nonpartisan questions in spite of her bias (yes, IMO.)
Michael, my post pretty clearly noted that the concern over Ifil. being biased during the debate was unfounded. And she wasn’t.
Now, should she have recused herself? There’s an argument to be made there for sure. Yet, has anybody read this book, or know its content, yet? Is it glowing about Obama (and no hearsay please)? The official description of the book doesn’t seem to be a narrative only about Obama, but many black politicians, just with him as a centerpiece, given his current position.
Seems to me that the only "facts" are ones the talking heads at Fox News have concluded are facts. Excuse me for thinking that’s like Keith Olbermann blasting a journalist for having written a book talking about political mavericks and having McCain as the centerpiece.
I’ve been looking, but I’ve found no synopsis’, reviews, or anything else. Heck, the book’s not even released yet, and assumptions are flying everywhere.
That’s the entire point MM – it does not matter if it’s a glowing book, neutral book, bashing book. Yes the bullet was dodged by her not showing bias – but the bullet should not even have been fired.
And even you have got to admit – the Liberals would have screamed, cried, whined – thrown themselves on the floor in a temper tantrum like they always do if the shoe was on the other foot.
For instance if you recall, the Lib’s wouldn’t even go onto Fox Network for a Debate run by the Congressional Black Caucus because of the place – not because of the content.
I thought their argument on that was stupid. At least Obama finally went on O’Reilly…as if the far right listens to him anymore, anyway. O’Reilly’s a traitor to them for being fair.
and how many debates did O’Reilly host? And how would Dem reaction be prior to O’Reilly hosting a debate?
Exactly. She showed she was not a professional because the bullet was fired. A ‘journalist’ should not let that happen. It’s even part of the rules journalists should adhere to.
OK – but did O’Reilly host a debate, or did he function in his normal role?