A comparison of the Gibson interviews.

This last week we saw ABC's Gibson try again and again to "get" Palin in his interview. It was obvious to most of us that this interview would present a very stark contrast to his little chat with Obama and we weren't let down.

Lets start with Gibson's first question to Palin:

newsbusters.org...

CHARLES GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just Vice President, but perhaps President of the United States of America?"

The question is what you typically see form the media when interviewing a Republican. First he casts doubt on her by saying the phrase "look them in the eye", implying shes lying and asks her to tell us all that she has experience.

Compare that to his first question to Obama:
newsbusters.org...

CHARLES GIBSON: Next, the presidential race and our attempt to explore the private side of the candidates, to learn about the events and the influences that have shaped them and brought them to this point in their political careers. So today in our “Who Is?” series, a Democrat relatively new to national politics, Senator Barack Obama.

Notice is introduces him to the audience. The question of if hes experience enough is spun in to a quest to learn "who is he?". Instead of casting the question negatively they spin it positively.

The Obama interview continues like this, moving through his child hood and upbringing. Ignoring any of his so called experience, in place of a biography. Where is all the concern of experience? You can read the rest of the transcript here.

In conclusion, some comparisons of questions asked of the two candidates.

TO PALIN:

GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready?”

TO OBAMA:
There is actually no question to compare it to. Every question he asked Obama was about his book and growing up.

Dont get me wrong, I beleive Palin should be asked these questions. I'd just like the same standard applied to Obama.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Dronetek]

I think it simply speaks to the bias of the media. They have their favorites, just like everyone else. We've seen two anchors already demoted over this type of bias, and I imagine we will see even more as November approaches. It's just par for the course.

I completely agree with what you're saying. I think every politician in the race should be subjected to the same rigorous interview process.

But you have to take into account the fact that the Obama interview took place in November of '07, a good 3 months before the Iowa caucuses where he upset Hillary Clinton and won.

The different line of questions could be construed as biased, but they could also be different because the political environment has changed exponentially since Obama's interview. Obama was interviewed 3 months before the first caucuses and Palins interview comes with less than two months to go until the general election.

I would like to see Obama interviewed again by Charlie Gibson during THIS time in the primaries because i think it would give us a much better idea as to whether or not he is biased. You know, the game has certainly changed since November of '07 when Obama was a long shot at best.

Interesting thread, starred!

reply to post by The Cyfre


I did take that in to account, but its really no different than ANY interview done to any republican in the MSM. I see the exact same bias, every time I see a Republican interviewed. You've probably seen me post what I beleive is the template for MSM interviews.

Republicans:
-Imply whatever they are saying is a lie.
-Treat as hostile witness
-Lots of rolling eyes and "sighs" during the interview.
-reinforce stereotypes (racists, sexists, bigots who hate the earth).

Democrats:
-Down play criticisms.
-Reinforce Democrat talking points.
-Treat like a good friend.
-Lots of smiles and nods.

reply to post by LLoyd45


I agree with you. You can't be blind and pretend that media outlets have their bias and choose sides. Anyone that watches MSNBC, FOX NEWS or CNN, can see the biased coverage to either side.

When it comes to Gov. Palin interview, I think that Gibson went hard at her, something that you usually don't see from a journalist interviewing a presidential or VP candidate. Not even Bill O'reilly when he interview Sen. Obama got confrontational at any point. Then again this was given the fact that the McCain campaign have been so overtly protective with Gov. Palin in the sense of when and how she can take questions from the media, that probably had something to do with Gibson approach in the interview.

reply to post by Dronetek


That's why I liked the Saddleback Forum so much. Both candidates knew the general topics to be discussed but not the specific questions. They were both asked the same questions as time allowed based on their answers.

It was a very easy way to compare and contrast the candidates, better than any debate format, IMO.

reply to post by Dronetek


I understand what you're saying. I just think it would be an easier point to agree to if Obama's interview and Palin's interview weren't 10 months apart. The political landscape has changed drastically since then.

If you think of it in terms of a scientific experiement, it should be in a controlled environment and this isn't. So it's difficult to compare with any real sense of finality because of how different the playing field was 10 months ago. I would be curious to see how the other "introductory" candidate interviews were carried out. I don't have time to look for them right now but when I get home from work i'll see if i can't locate some interviews from that same time frame for the other candidates.

I assume you'll agree that EVERYONE was against Ron Paul. Did he even get any interviews by Charlie Gibson? =D

I think the point of the OP is comparing Gibson's FIRST interview with Obama with his FIRST interview with Palin.

One was soft and fluffy (Obama), and the other was hard and confrontational (Palin).

Why couldn't Gibson question Obama on the issues like he did with Palin? Or, vice versa, why couldn't Gibson "introduce" Palin to the country like he did with Obama?

Why the difference in tone, topic, and standard?

Nice, the mods moved this to keep anyone from seeing it. That must be their new tactic to silence dissent.

Anyway, here is a nice example of the difference in interviews.