ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

More...

Full Interview Transcript-- Unedited

See also: abcnews.go.com... (Credit to Dronetek.)

:shk:

Shameful.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]

Loam, is this standard operating procedure for interviews of this type? I mean, how often does Charles Gibson sit down and interview folks and are all interviews edited in a similar manner?

Is the unedited version available for viewing on the ABC website atleast? If not, this is upsetting and irresponsible.

I am all for unedited news and having the chance to listen to our political candidates have their say.

I think all MSM is guilty of misrepresenting candidates. Even assuming the best of intentions, entire speeches are reduced to 15 second snippets which are then discussed to death by "experts".

I want to sit and listen to the entire speech, not just the bits that incite endless circling talking points. All the time spent listening to these "experts" would be better spent showing us the candidates, in their own words, out on the campaign trail.

Wow, thats some serious editing they did. Its not far off from the kind of stuff you saw in the movie, The Running Man.

Gibson comes across as very condescending and dismissive of her answers. No wonder the cut those parts out. Palin was answering the questions well and Gibson just couldn't stand it. Its still boggles my mind that we as country are allowing this to continue.

Look at the difference in the line of questioning between Obama and Palin:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]

This is the end of the msm, we will all look back on this election as the year the media died.
How can they have any credibility after what they have done on the last two presidential elections?

This Gibson screw up will also help to bolster Palin/McCain's numbers.

Honestly I kind of want them to keep screwing up and getting caught.

Alright, so we have a NewsBuster article which is a conservative website that links back to the "full story" which is only found on Mark Levin's website who is a conservative political commentator. Where's the actual transcript?

It's going to take more than a conservative website saying "I have the actual unedited transcript from the interview but no one else does" to get me to buy this.

Originally posted by Dronetek
You must have made a really good point Loam, because they moved you to the basement that is "education and media". We got ourselves a microcosm of the main stream media in the ATS forums! Fascinating.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]

Or maybe they moved this because it has more to do with the media than anything else. Though since there isn't any transcript other than on Mark Levin's website I doubt the media is even involved.

I saw this interview Friday on 20/20. My two favorite parts where when Gibson asked her a question about the economy and the edit cuts to her already in mid sentence talking about alternative fuels and global warming. Nice edit job ABC. Splice an answer to a different question. Good job.

Second was Gibson citing some ridiculous and yet to be confirmed statistic about 70% of the nation wanting to ban semi-autos. Source Charlie?

I've seen better editing from the high school A/V club.

reply to post by davion

Or maybe they moved this because it has more to do with the media than anything else.

Its called plausible deniability, something the ATS people should notice right away.

Though since there isn't any transcript other than on Mark Levin's website I doubt the media is even involved.

abcnews.go.com...

Is that a good enough source for you? I'm not sure why you thought this was some sort of right wing conspiracy anyway. ABC admitted after the interview that it was highly edited.







[edit on 15-9-2008 by Dronetek]

I thought all media did this already.
That what you see on the news is not much better then what you see on survivor.

My question these days is...who can you trust?Not the papers, not most of the news sources. No wonder people stop paying attention.

I work for a local gov't agency. I would watch my boss get inteviewed for like 45 minutes, and then watch it that night and see it butchered.

I also have friends who are police officers or fire fighters always yelling at the news screen, saying: that is NOT how it happened.

pretty sad.

Thanks for the link. Looks like they did a lot of cut and pasting with the interview. I just don't understand why the articles that have been posted in this thread didn't link back to the official transcript from ABC, and that's what made me suspicious.

reply to post by Dronetek

Originally posted by Dronetek
abcnews.go.com...

Nice job. I went to go look for that myself.



reply to post by quango


I think it's quite clear we were being led by the nose on this one. Frankly, I still think there are legitimate items to criticize Palin on without manufacturing reasons or manipulating the viewing public.

How many people do you think know these transcripts exist? How many will learn the full scope of her answers-- even on this board?

It's distasteful....deceitful....and un-American.

Pathetic, imo.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]

How did ABC News get this exclusive first interview anyway?

I would assume the McCain camp had the perogative to choose any outlet they wished. Have they issued any offical statement on their opinion of the piece?

reply to post by loam


Since the MSM could not baske in the glory of defeat in the Iraq war, it seems their focus has now turned to placing a candidate in office. When this too fails, what then will draw their attention?

And good job digging up the transcripts of the real interview. Based on this interview I now refuse to watch ANYTHING on ABC. Actually, the only show worth watching on ABC is Boston Legal, or WAS Boston Legal.

reply to post by TheRooster


I just wonder who at ABC made this decision and who was directly involved in the editing.

How involved was Charlie Gibson in the editing decisions?

Like I said, the whole thing is distasteful....deceitful....and un-American.

reply to post by quango


Here's on bit on the McCain camp reaction to the editing of the religion answers:

reply to post by loam


I really don't care WHO was responsible for the editing or content, to me they are all responsible. What is sad is how ALL of the GOP candidates and their campaign staff get ATTACKED as apposed to interviewed by the MSM. Compare the attacks to the puff pieces and the Bias is exposed.

But for what purpose? Why? What is it about this ticket that they are willing to "sell out" to such a blatant extent?

Why are they not asking Obama the tough questions? Why do they continue to lob teddy bears at him? Why? What am I missing? Is this country (via the MSM) really willing to hand this guy the keys without asking him the tough questions?

I know many are tired of the Bush administration and are fearful McCain would just be a continuation of it. But I'm wondering what would be worse, walking blindly into the unknown?

The reason I say "the unknown" is not simply becasue Obama has either changed his opinion (answer) to mirror the public opinion, or answered a question with a non-answer (that's above my paygrade). It is becasue he hasn't even been asked the tough questions!

Whether you think the jr. Senator is experienced to lead this country or not I can tell you one thing about each person elected to that office before they were sworn in... They don't even know what they don't know yet, and WE know nothing about this guy!

[edit on 9/15/2008 by TheRooster]

reply to post by loam


Loam, I have read the Mark Levin transcript with the supposedly edited out stuff highlighted and underlined.

Last night, my wife and I watched the DVR'd interviews, and I can tell you that NONE of the parts Levin says was edited out actually were!!!!

ALL of that transcript WAS AIRED!!

Sorry to break your little gabfest here, but this whole thread is BS. I am a registered Republican in the State of Maryland, and have been for twenty years, but I cannot stand by and see these lies being perpetrated as truth.

The entire transcript that is posted on abcnews.go.com was aired in full. Yes, it LOOKED like it had been cut apart, but every word there WAS AIRED, and they did not move answers from one question to another.

Levin is a liar.

According to this guy, even the released transcript is not the full deal:

A Public Challenge to Charles Gibson at ABC News

Two manipulative editing techniques stand out in particular:

1. In all of the shows on which excerpts from the interview were broadcast, the videotape editors rarely let Palin finish a thought with a full reply. Instead, they selected only a fragmentary response, sometimes even cutting her off in mid-sentence. Any viewer can see this for himself, by the abruptness of the cutaways from her words followed by awkward jump-cuts to something else. This often left false impressions about her responsiveness to questions, the extent of her knowledge, and the nuances of her positions.

2. Watching the various ABC shows scattered over two days, I also discovered that their editors broadcast different fragmentary replies by Palin to the same questions. One could know that only by watching all of those shows and comparing which of several Palin responses was paired with the same question. On one show, a selected fragment might be so terse, incomplete, and off-point as to make Palin appear to be foolish or evasive; but if one watched a different ABC show, he'd find that its editors had selected a different Palin response to that same question -- a response that was thoughtful and on-point.

He continues:

On its website, ABC has now published links to what it calls "full excerpts" from all three of your interviews with Palin. This is, of course, deceptive. A "full" interview transcript is unedited and complete; something taken from an interview is an "excerpt." "Full excerpts" is therefore a contradiction in terms: The two words are mutually exclusive.

ABC appears to be trying to convince its viewers that these "full excerpts" include everything that Palin said. You and I both know that this is untrue: They include only those portions of her comments that ABC chose to broadcast. The very fact that they are "excerpts" means that ABC is holding back material that, for whatever reasons, it does not choose to reveal.

Interesting allegation.

EDIT: Actually, I'm having trouble determining if he wrote this before the missing portions were revealed or if he was referring to additional missing material.

EDIT, again: I think he's referring to NEW material.



[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Well, thanks for WASTING my time. I'll be sure to save everyone else's...

The broadcast and transcripts do NOT match.

On the really off chance you were right, I compared the transcript to the interview, demonstrating your entire post to be a lie. (Well maybe not the "Republican from Maryland" part, although I thought none really existed in that state. )

I'd hang on to that DVR of yours! It apparently has supernatural properties enabling it to discern what otherwise has not been released on the airwaves. Must be worth a fortune.



Here's Part 1 of the interview. Anyone can follow along the transcript and determine the answer for themselves.


Full Interview Transcript-- Unedited


[edit on 15-9-2008 by loam]