Palin interview/editing

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I am watching the Palin interview with Charlie Gibson. Does any one else notice how much editing went on in that interview? They cut her off several times before she could finish answering a question. Makes me sick. I want to hear everything she has to say on questions. Seems to me that maybe she screwed up and they cut it. Typical.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Aww man! I was watching something else and missed most of it.

I'd like to add, though, that it's an open book test type interview. They gave her a list of questions and she chose the ones she would answer beforehand. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. But cropping her answers when she already knew and approved which questions would be asked?
That's ... odd to me.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Busymind
 


I have not heard that about the interview. Perhaps you could provide a link regarding her having the questions beforehand?

Otherwise, I missed this segment of the interview. I recorded it, but the disc I used died. Oh well, I'll try again later tonight.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   
i'm not sure why they would edit her interview? I didn't think they were GOP friendly to start with. Maybe they just ran out of time, or had to get in their sponsor breaks.. I'd liked to have seen the interview myself.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Busymind
 


There were 2 parts to it in that half hour. I don't think they cut as much in the second part. But the first part was butchered. They must have done it in a hurry because they did a very poor job. It was very obvious. There is more to that interview tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Charlie put her on the spot when he asked her if she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. THere was an awkward pause and she said what part of it would you like to talk about ( paraphrase) Then she went on and on about national security and Gibson bascially explained the Bush Doctrine to here and then she answered it again......wow

clueless



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zippy1958
reply to post by Busymind
 


There were 2 parts to it in that half hour. I don't think they cut as much in the second part. But the first part was butchered. They must have done it in a hurry because they did a very poor job. It was very obvious. There is more to that interview tomorrow.


I agree. You could even hear where she was going to say something else, and she'd start to talk and boom....cut and edit.

I don't think they cut anything "important" out, but they did a sorry job of editing. Not even close to anything resembling seamless.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Some excerpts from the interview found here:

abcnews.go.com...

I haven't watched them just providing the link for those interested



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
ABC News Interview

Here's another link to the Palin interview on ABC. This shows some of the quick edits.

Like I said, it doesn't seem like they cut anything important out, but the editing itself is obvious and in some cases, kind of sloppy.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Thank you for providing the link. I have not perfecting uploading links yet. I appreciate your help.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
After finding the interview online, I do have a problem with his question about her statement on religion and its relation to the war. He stated that they were her exact words, but that's only a half-truth. Her exact quote was:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

They were her exact words, but out of context. She did a very good job of fending it off, however, and clarified it exactly as I thought she would when it was posted on this board a few days ago.

Otherwise, I thought it was a tough, but reasonably fair interview.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
(edited to add: reply didn't work. this is a response to vor78)
I found it on Electoral-vote.com It was posted on the 8th of September, and I misremembered it a bit. Here's a quote:



Sarah Palin Agrees to be Interviewed
With McCain, Obama, and Biden all on the Sunday talk shows yesterday, the Democrats began saying that Palin was afraid to be interviewed by a serious reporter. To avoid having this charge become an issue itself, the McCain campaign has backed down and agreed to let her be interviewed by ABC's Charles Gibson. Republicans are hoping for a Larry-King-like softball interview with questions like: "Do you think you have enough experience to be President if the need should arise?" Democrats are hoping for more hardball questions like: "Do you really believe that if a woman is raped she should be forced to bear her rapist's child?" The structure of the interview--taped over a period of several days--is not the way political reporters normally work because it allows the interviewee to recover from a mistake by saying: "Let's try that one again." The reporter can't afford to have the interviewee walk off the set, so he is under pressure to be nice. In an interview broadcast live, there are no holds barred.
source

There's a link within the quote that goes here

So, I was wrong. Nowhere does it say she'll know the questions in advance. Apologies.
Electoral-vote tries to provide information without bias. The data and reports come from many places, all of them referenced and reputable. I was the one who misremembered what I'd read 3 days ago.
I'm glad you asked me to check, otherwise I might have been responsible for spreading lies.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by Busymind]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Well, she wasn’t really at a loss for words. She just didn’t answer the question honestly. One could say she kept her real opinion to herself. I. e. she lied entirely. It’s obvious that she was coached — to infinity and beyond — to respond to these questions.

Sarah Palin is a simple-minded person, undifferentiated in thought. And she’s mean as catsh..t. Which explains why she’s able to speak so assertively. She’ll lie without the slightest flinching. This lady is cold as marble. There is not an ounce of compassion in her.

Many think she’s intelligent. But that’s way wrong. She is great at memorizing whatever she is supposed to say (to please her audience), precisely because she is so brainless. Truly smart people have a conscience. And they constantly evaluate and reason. Which is why intelligent people sometimes come across as wishy-washy or insecure. Well if the American people are attracted to Sarah Palin’s ‘self-confidence’ then we are in for the ride of a lifetime should ‘she’ ever become president.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Sarah Palin is a simple-minded person, undifferentiated in thought. And she’s mean as catsh..t. Which explains why she’s able to speak so assertively. She’ll lie without the slightest flinching. This lady is cold as marble. There is not an ounce of compassion in her.

Many think she’s intelligent. But that’s way wrong. She is great at memorizing whatever she is supposed to say (to please her audience), precisely because she is so brainless.


Ah Wizard, you never fail to disappoint me. Tell me what you really think about Palin.

From the bits I have watched so far, it will play good to the public. I want to see the whole piece before I comment in detail.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I can't help but feel the editing job was intentional.

It makes her seem shrill and her answers frenetic.

WTF was that???





posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
From the bits I have watched so far, it will play good to the public. I want to see the whole piece before I comment in detail.


No it won't, Pavil. It'll play well to repubs and folks like Sean Hannity. She came off as a subordinate, not as a leader. It looked like a job interview for a middle class job, not an interview of a world leader.

This will hurt the McCain/Palin ticker.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I can't help but feel the editing job was intentional.

It makes her seem shrill and her answers frenetic.

WTF was that???




That's not a result of the editing job. That's how she sounded.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


Tell you what, lets wait and find out how the public perceives it, since we here are all a little biased one way or the other, shall we?

Agreed?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Tell you what, lets wait and find out how the public perceives it, since we here are all a little biased one way or the other, shall we?

Agreed?



I'm not biased. I'm not for either. I call it like I see it. I could just as easily have loved her performance had it been good.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by tommy_boy
 


How would you know? Have you seen a version without the editing?

I've looked. Didn't find anything.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by loam]





new topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join