« Text of the New Bailout Bill | Main | Absolute Must Read: 'Half of Obama's Entire Campaign War chest May Come Illegally Come from Foreign Sources ' »
October 1, 2008
'Ifill's Book is no Secret' and neither is her bias (Updated with video of McCain response)
Topics: Political News and commentariesIn Howard Kurtz's "whitewash" of Gwen Ifell's pro-Black candidate book and her being the moderator for the VP debate, he writes that there is no evidence that the book will be favorable to the Democratic nominee, and quotes PBS spokeswoman Anne Bell in saying, "The book has been out there and discussed for months," ... "It's a non-issue."
A "non-issue" perhaps for the absurdly naive, but not to those of us who've witnessed months of media bias and pro-Obama mania from journalists and commentators with seemingly no integrity whatsoever, Kurtz being equally in the tank for Obama as the rest of his Komrads in the media.
And then as though the facts completely escape him, in addition to his quoting Anne Bell's "non-issue" nonsense, he quotes Ifill herself in what has to be the most ridiculous statement a Black female journalist could come up with, given the facts from the primaries and the current poll reports. Kurtz writes:
In The Post interview, Ifill said that as the daughter of a minister who marched in civil rights demonstrations, she recognized the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. But, Ifill said, "I still don't know if he'll be a good president. I'm still capable of looking at his pros and cons in a political sense." She added: "In The Post interview, Ifill said that as the daughter of a minister who marched in civil rights demonstrations, she recognized the historic nature of Obama's candidacy. But, Ifill said, "I still don't know if he'll be a good president. I'm still capable of looking at his pros and cons in a political sense." She added: "No one's ever assumed a white reporter can't cover a white candidate.""No one's ever assumed a white reporter can't cover a white candidate"? Well, no - but more than 90% of whites are not supporting a white candidate - which compares to over 90% of blacks supporting Barack Obama - including Ifill. Most whites are voting according to who they see as the best candidate, while most blacks are voting for Obama because (fill in the blank) On the other hand, there are many whites who suffer from their self-induced, liberal, white guilt and are voting for Obama. If there is racism here it lies clearly with Black Americans, not White America.Ifill, who has worked for NBC News, the New York Times and The Washington Post, was widely viewed as doing a fair job as moderator of the 2004 debate between Vice President Cheney and John Edwards. She drew a bit of criticism for asking a question about Cheney's former company, Halliburton, and when the vice president said he would need more than 30 seconds to respond, she said: "Well, that's all you've got." Ifill said she was not trying to be snippy toward Cheney..".
Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this picture - and Ifill's defense of her being the moderator?
And tell me that Ifill wasn't being "snippy" with Cheney - and didn't exhibit a history of her pro-Democrat bias - and you know what I'll do on the courthouse steps with three weeks to draw a crowd. And if you have any doubt of her anti-GOP bias, take a gander at the video in this post and you can see her wreaking of disgust for the GOP convention.
However, biased and snippy is the least of the problem with Ifill. As Jed Babbin points out at RedState, we're used to liberal bias in the media, and it's questionable if PBS can even find among its journalists someone who approaches an unbiased point of view but there's another issue with Ifill that is even more a problem:
Nevertheless, Ifill has a financial interest in the outcome of the election. If Obama loses, her book will be DOA. If Obama wins, she wins greater book sales and thus far greater income from royalties. This, by any standard, is a disqualifying conflict of interest.Our take home message here is simple: Black woman journalist supporter of Black presidential candidate who wrote a book on race and politics, and is actively pro-that Black candidate, and who stands to benefit if that candidate is elected, believe it or not boys and girls - is a problem that PBS should have foreseen had they any intention whatsoever of being fair and balanced.
They weren't, and they aren't.
Update: Via Politico:Fox's Carl Cameron asked John McCain today if he thought that PBS journalist Gwen Ifill should recuse herself from moderating Thursday's VP debate in St. Louis. McCain's response was almost nonchalant:
"I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly-respected professional," McCain said."Does this help that if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama?" McCain asked. "Probably not."
As AllahPundit points out, McCain is disgusted but this is likely the right way to play it. No sense whining beforehand, after all, the public is already on notice of her bias thanks to Drudge and Michelle (and much of the center-right side of the blogospere), and McCain will have plenty of opportunity to hammer her afterward the debate if she goes into the tank anyway.
Besides, Team Maverick's bludgeoned the media so often lately that I think they're at risk of blunting the effect from sheer volume. Take the magnanimous route now, hope that Ifill responds to the heat by being fair to Palin, and in the meantime simply point out that a moderator with a book in the works about McCain would never, ever be tolerated. The Giuliani approach, in other words.
Posted by Abdul at October 1, 2008 2:08 PM
Articles Related to Political News and commentaries:
- 'Ifill's Book is no Secret' and neither is her bias (Updated with video of McCain response) - Oct 01, 2008
