The best approach for Ifill is to skew the questions against both candidates. It's the level of skewing that gets done though. So Biden will be wrong on something too, but it won't be as bad as Palin's wrong answer. Then the democrats can shoot back that Biden didn't perform well either.
So Biden might get a question on what it's like to be a hockey mom, and Palin will get asked a question like "spell Ahmadinejad".
Sure, both candidates might make a mistake on one of those questions, but which one is worse? Biden can't be expected to know the inner workings of a woman, but Palin certainly should know how to spell the president of a major country's name! the outRAGE!
To be sure, Ifill should ask Palin to spell potato.
So Biden might get a question on what it's like to be a hockey mom, and Palin will get asked a question like "spell Ahmadinejad".
Sure, both candidates might make a mistake on one of those questions, but which one is worse? Biden can't be expected to know the inner workings of a woman, but Palin certainly should know how to spell the president of a major country's name! the outRAGE!
To be sure, Ifill should ask Palin to spell potato.
idiotekniQues
Platinum Member
- Jan 4, 2007
- 2,572
- 0
- 76
Of course right wingers will parrot a pathetic talking point like this ? that this moderator with a long esteemed and highly regarded professional journalistic career is ready, willing and able to toss it away for potential book sales, by singularly conspiring on national tv, with everybody watching, to decimate john mccain?s running mate to help usher in an obama presidency. For the book sales.
Do you know why this is? Because they lack much of a soul. To them money is what it is all about. They do not understand that while money is a driving force for so many, there is a significant part of the human spirit that strives for something more. Such as this journalist. Or for many academics. Or many scientists, or a good amount of religious folk. While many many falter on their path, there are those who just strive for the knowledge and for the higher rewards than just the monetary. They know they will be comfortable without having to sell out.
But a large part of the right wing mindset can never comprehend that because they don?t have that depth of character. This is a crucial and fundamental difference between reactionary right wing regressives that parrot these points vs. other positions spoken on these boards and by kitchen tables or water coolers. We, as left of these far right stooges, understand that money is important, and we understand that money and reward drives people. But at the same time we recognize that there is this other part of the human spirit that is present in a respectable number of folks significantly, and is a part of many more of us, and that it has to be recognized ? otherwise, if all we are driven by is greed, we will fail as a species.
But they don?t get that, that is why they can state simply and with full belief, that this journalist who had risen to the highest standards of journalism was going to throw it away for book sales in front of a national audience. They don?t get it. This is why their way of thinking is a bigger threat to this country than practically anything else.
Do you know why this is? Because they lack much of a soul. To them money is what it is all about. They do not understand that while money is a driving force for so many, there is a significant part of the human spirit that strives for something more. Such as this journalist. Or for many academics. Or many scientists, or a good amount of religious folk. While many many falter on their path, there are those who just strive for the knowledge and for the higher rewards than just the monetary. They know they will be comfortable without having to sell out.
But a large part of the right wing mindset can never comprehend that because they don?t have that depth of character. This is a crucial and fundamental difference between reactionary right wing regressives that parrot these points vs. other positions spoken on these boards and by kitchen tables or water coolers. We, as left of these far right stooges, understand that money is important, and we understand that money and reward drives people. But at the same time we recognize that there is this other part of the human spirit that is present in a respectable number of folks significantly, and is a part of many more of us, and that it has to be recognized ? otherwise, if all we are driven by is greed, we will fail as a species.
But they don?t get that, that is why they can state simply and with full belief, that this journalist who had risen to the highest standards of journalism was going to throw it away for book sales in front of a national audience. They don?t get it. This is why their way of thinking is a bigger threat to this country than practically anything else.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
IMHO, Gwen Ifill's performance showed almost total unbiased. Gwen asked the questions and then got out of and stayed out of the way. Neither side has anything to bitch at and I doubt anything but total partisan hacks will have a single bad thing to say about Gwen's performance.
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
I'll take all that as a big told you so.
Next time people should try thinking thru the logic of the talking points before they go off half cocked. Politicians (L or R) only get away with suggesting such stupidities because there are so many people anxious to repeat them.
I thought she did a horrible job - she didn't actually do any moderation. She allowed both candidates to go wildly off topic. Sometimes she'd bring up that they went off topic but didn't actually do anything about it, just moved on to the next question.
Does anyone think that Ifill took it a smidgeon too easy on Palin out of fear of being labeled biased? There were several times when I thought Ifill could've hampered Palin's progress by asking a tougher follow-up question. or by making Palin answer a question first instead of asking Biden and letting Palin hear his answer (for instance, on the issue of whether there is a clear line to indicate when the US should get involved in foreign conflicts such as Darfur).
If she didn't let Palin go off topic, Palin would only have had yes or no answers. How many times was her response to the actual question "Yes, but, {RANT} and that's what makes us a good team of mavericks!"
I don't think she did a very good job. I also don't think she came off biased or with an agenda.
That was one thing I worried about. I didn't think she would be biased, but I thought she might worry about being perceived as biased and lose her teeth.
Maybe she would have handled the debate the same way regardless, but it really seemed like she didn't bother trying to press any point or keep things on topic.
/nod, I thought she was completely even-handed. But it didn't surprise me with all the hoopla - no way was she going to give any credence to bias.
Why don't you just announce to the world that the reason you do what is right, if and when you do what is right rather, is because somebody knows you're a worthless cheat and they're watching you.
Oh, right, you just did say that.
How readily we announce to the world who we are when we proclaim our suspicions of others.
The thief constantly worries somebody will rob him, the liar only hears lies, the rage king sees hostility everywhere.
There was never going to be any bias and the hoopla changed not a thing.
Having spent time as an internal auditor, it's quite clear that many (most?) people are much more likely to chose the "right" decision when they know they are being "watched".
As a nobody observing the ethical culture that generates respect in the press for their fellow reporters and gets people gigs interviewing politicians, etc, it is, in my opinion, the capacity to put one's own bias aside and objectively question, that is among those qualities that generate the highest respect.
Ifill is known as a professional and as such has just those quality in spades. From a professional one expects professional behavoir.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a little known fact, people will do what is wrong far more often when they are watched, implying they are expected to, than when there is a clear expectation that almost nobody cheats is that situation.
If you say, too many people are using too many paper towels to dry your hands, people that use few will use more. because they instinctively want to be like other people, but if you say most people use few more people will use fewer too.
If most people feel others are honest they will be too.
Ifill is known as a professional and as such has just those quality in spades. From a professional one expects professional behavoir.
Furthermore, and this is perhaps a little known fact, people will do what is wrong far more often when they are watched, implying they are expected to, than when there is a clear expectation that almost nobody cheats is that situation.
If you say, too many people are using too many paper towels to dry your hands, people that use few will use more. because they instinctively want to be like other people, but if you say most people use few more people will use fewer too.
If most people feel others are honest they will be too.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
If you mean she didn't ask any follow-up questions to the talking point non-answers she was getting for fear of being labeled biased, then sure.
Otherwise she could have been replaced by a 90 second hourglass and a piece of oaktag with the questions printed on it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter