Ray has something to say about Charles Gibson's interview with Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, marveling at what he calls Gibson's "condescending demeanor."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Talk back!
We want to know what you think. Your written responses to Ray's audioblog posts are encouraged. Click on the "Comments" tab in the lower-right-hand corner of every post for a chance share your opinion.
About Me
- Ray Richardson
- I live in Westbrook with my wonderful wife Dee Dee and our four children. We have been residents of Maine for a little over 22 years, moving here from Florida in 1985.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(175)
-
▼
September
(32)
- And So The Beat Goes On
- Whom do you trust?
- RIP Paul Newman
- Ray Says 'Yes on 1'
- Let Her Loose!
- Ray Says 'No on 2'
- Optimism and Pessimism
- Just How Urgent is This?
- Dispatch from the Cumberland Fair
- Something is Broken
- Beyond Philosophy
- Just How Free is the Free Market?
- Idle Threat
- Don't Panic!
- Buyouts, Bailouts, and Downturns
- The Blind Leading the Blind
- Reckless
- Seeking Energy Solutions
- Where's the Judgment Come From?
- Seven Years Later
- Stop the Flow of Illegals
- Fears and Smears
- Spotlight on Sarah Palin
- Stop the Madness
- Incomes Flatlining
- Time to Get Serious
- Side-by-Side Comparison
- Out of the Park
- Prescription for Savings
- What Really Matters
- 4-Day School Week?
- Astounded by the Ignorance
-
▼
September
(32)
13 comments:
You have got to be kidding?!? I mean, first of all, Charles Gibson was in a no win situation to begin with. If he takes it easy on the interview everyone will fuss that he didn't ask the hard questions, if he goes ahead and asks the tough questions, then he's picking on her. Tough spot to be in.
Secondly, I think he did a decent job of trying to get some real answers out of her. She was talking around a lot of things and by asking a question more than once, he was just hoping to get something specific. The other side, throughout this campaign, has consistently tried to push Obama to get into specifics. Making a pretty big stink if they perceive he doesn't answer a question thoroughly enough. Now, someone tries to press poor little Sarah on something and suddenly it is too far. Amazing. Absolutely amazing the double standard at play here.
She was not very solid with the foreign policy questions he tossed at her either. Not that that is a huge issue at this moment, but if it supposed to be an issue for Obama, then it is certainly an issue for her as well.
As for a "condescending" attitude from Gibson....well, have you watched the Fox News Channel...ever? Especially when it comes to coverage of the Democrats...they take condescending to a new level entirely. Its a wonder some of the reporters and "tele-prompter readers" don't have holes poked through their cheeks after the DNC a couple weeks ago.
So, now I finally get it. It is not what one does that matters, it is that others do it as well and that makes it okay? At least that is now the established pattern.
Did you actually listen to what I said, or did you just respond?
I think he should ask all kinds of tough questions. I want Sarah to be fully vhetted. Personally, based on what I know of her, she will be just fine ... as she was last night.
Gibson acted like an ass. He sat there in judgement of her. That is not the job of the media, that is the job of the American public.
If this passes for journalism and sound interviewing, then that is your standard. His effort did not meet my standard of a journalist. He did last evening what I do, he commentated.
Being a commentator is okay, but it is not okay when you are pretending to be a journalist.
He asked her the question about Pakistan several times. The question was hypothetical in nature in that Sarah is not in the office currently. She repeatedly said (I am paraphrasing) that all options should be on the table. He did not want an answer to that question, he wanted to attempt to expose her as not having the capacity to understand the situation.
The Bush Doctrine is another example. Gibson was attempting to appear intellectual with that one and he wanted to "get Sarah" if she could not answer it in a manner he deemed appropriate.
There is no specific definition of the Bush Doctrine. This term has widely evolved as time has passed and has come to mean different things to different people. Although many people have defined it "rooting out terrorism by supporting emerging democracies around the globe" others have defined it as the "unilateral approach to foreign policy that demands the United States to act whenever or wherever it sees a national interest."
Gibson wanted a gotcha moment, but he did not get it, because George Bush is not James Monroe or Harry Truman. Their "doctrine" was/is well defined and apparent.
Gibson should have treated her like a person and asked her the questions in a manner that he took while walking along together. During that exchange, he asked good questions that deserve an answer.
Regardless of what an ass Gibson was, Sarah Palin did what I expected her to do, handle herself with dignity and grace and present her answers in her manner, not his.
By the way, I don't like it when O'Rielly, Rush and others do what Gibson did.
Just because those guys are on television and radio does not make them special. They put their pants on just like everyone else, one leg at a time.
I am taking great pleasure in watching the Democrats and the liberal media, who are acting as if they are Mr Obama's personal press corps, implode over the nomination of Gov. Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice-President. Charles Gibson's attempt to trap Gov. Palin into somehow incriminate herself with his attitude towards her was another indication of the liberal bias in the main-stream media. And now we are even seeing the Palin-Derangement Syndrome on the floor of the US Senate with the ridiculous statement by Senator Cohen that "Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a Govenor." This has since become a DNC directed talking point. There are two things wrong with that stupid statement, first to compare Mr. Obama with Jesus Christ is an absoulte slap in the face to every Christen in the country. I know my Savior and he is not Barak Obama. The second thing wrong with that stupid statement is Sarah Palin is no occupying Roman Govenor. She's better!!! The Obama campaign and his liberal media surrogates see Gov. Palin as a very real threat and are just going insane on how to deal with it. My answer to them is this, you're not going to be able to deal with it. The average REAL Americans have a candidate that they can fully support and believe in and that, my liberal friends, is REAL CHANGE that we BELIEVE in. But, by all means, keep sending out your Charles Gibsons, Matt Damons, Susan Surrandons, Whoopi Goldbergs and Pam Andersons with their moronic statments because, in doing so, you are showing REAL America just how radical and out of touch you really are. Keep up the good work.
oj simpson...barack obama...what's the difference in regards to how they are treated...we have a close family friend that was involved with oj's trial...the only thing missing was nicole's head in his bronco..and he still got off...no different than obama...why the media ignores the facts about this marxist/socialist goes beyond belief...almost seems criminal in itself..everything from corrupt connections...to black liberation theologists...to known felons to the communist party...if the media took 1/2 the time they've spent on investigating a rnc vp candidate in the last 12 days...and investigated obama..they'd have a story that would crumble their "chosen" candidate...oops!!...i just answered an obvious question....hey ray...any info on your "radio free maine" getting up the coast sometime soon...or are we just one of the "forgotten"...103.9fm has great people...but again...random reception unless you're stationary....
It is not that others do it, therefore it is alright. I reference "the other side" (doing the same thing) in this simply because they are the ones who seem to yell the loudest when anyone else does something wrong. The double standard at play is rather obvious and while not right, I admit I am guilty of playing the "well if they can do it, why can't I..." card now and again.
I actually give you some credit for indicating your distaste for O'Reilly and Rush doing the same thing. Conveniently, there are a lot of other people that seem to forget those guys do it too. That also bothers me greatly.
And I did listen to your comments, a couple of times actually, before responding. I also give you credit for saying tough questions should be asked, however, I disagree with you on the point that he acted like an ass.
I think he did act like a journalist. A journalist that was trying to get real answers to real questions. She was doing what most politicians do when asked specific questions. Answering with long generalities and not specifics. I believe Gibson was simply trying to stay on target and get his questions answered as opposed to what most reporters do and just move on to the next question with no follow-up. The Pakistan question was a perfect example of that. I found the stick-to-itive-ness refreshing.
The Bush Doctrine question was another. I was not aware of multiple definitions of the Doctrine. I thought it was as he explained it and also thought it was fairly common knowledge.
Overall, I do believe he did a decent job. I think the two different settings (outside walking & inside seated) required the difference in presentation. I believe he was direct and on point in both cases. And with such issues on the table, it is hard to soft peddle anything in the first place. With her typical politician type answers, I believe he came across as best as possible with her. It was not an easy spot to be in for any journalist.
You are right when you say that vetting her is not the job of the media, but of us, the American public. We however, do not have the direct access to candidates and NEED the media to ask the hard questions in hard ways to gather the info we need for the all important decisions facing us. Unfortunately it can't always be pretty or perfect for our own candidates, no matter what side you fall on.
Your points are well made.
Ray said "Gibson acted like an ass. He sat there in judgement of her. That is not the job of the media, that is the job of the American public".
Yeah ray , you never judge.
I wish he had gotten her to tell how dinosaurs were placed on earth by God 4000 years ago .
It is refreshing to hear the GOP complaining about sexism . First time i ever heard of them caring.
From Romney on McCain ""Senator McCain was against the Bush tax cuts and now says he's for the Bush tax cuts. He was against ethanol, then for ethanol, then against ethanol," Romney told Fox News in an interview at a private airport in Fort Myers, following a small rally here. "I think Senator McCain is willing to say anything to try and get elected. He's been looking for this job for a long, long time."
Quite the flip flopper old McCain is
Bruce, you need to pay more attention. I do not sit in judgement of people. I do not have that right, only God does.
I sit in judgement of their elected activities. Now I realize you are satisfied with our citizens struggling, eeking out a meek living because it is more important for government to control our lives and tell us what to do than it is for us to be prosperous, but I am un-satisfied with this status and as long as I live here, I will work to overturn their political stupidity.
I do not sit in judgement of people, nor will I until God himself gives me that authority.
In fact, one of the things that upsets my political friends is how I differeniate between the very bad policies and the very good people.
By the way, I am not one of these people who jumps all over a person because their position evolves unless it is clear it violates their long-stated principles.
You gotta get my newspaper column. I have written about the "flip-flop" idea extensively over a wide range of candidates.
I have cautioned my friends on the right that they must pay close attention to this because we need to embrace people who migrate our way, such as a pro-choicer who over time becomes pro-life.
We cannot simply embrace those who agree and shame those who do not.
I know that this is a few days old, but wanted to make sure you saw this article by Charles Krauthammer on Gibson's "Bush Doctrine" questioning.
Krauthammer was the first to use the term in 2001 and says Gibson was incorrect in his definition.
Which makes his arrogance all the worse.
I wonder if Bush even knows what a doctrine is.
Go ahead everyone elect someone as vp who thinks that the world is going to end in her lifetime. God must have told her.
Ray says "I do not sit in judgement of people, nor will I until God himself gives me that authority".
I am sure he will someday.
By the way I thought
Gibson pretty much laid down and used kid gloves on Palin.
Amazing that she is supposedly such a tough lady ,but cannot take any of the abuse Hillary has gotten from the right for many years.
Once again Bruce, you are wrong. Just how many times can you be wrong and keep coming back for more.
Palin did not complain about her treatment by Gibson. She said just the opposite. It is people like me who felt Gibson stood in judgement of her.
Now that we have the un-edited version of the interview, it is even worse.
No Bruce, I do not judge people. I recognize that when someone is as sure of himself as I am about what I believe and when I am un-afraid to challenge politicians who have never been challenged, that probably does seem like judgement to many in this state ... and it is, but not about them as people.
Most of them I do not know as people, just as politicians over the last 15 years.
The only ones I know as people are those whose political judgement I probably agree with.
As long as there is going to be an ongoing discussion on judging people, I would like to offer a little reminder of what that actually means in the biblical sense.
When we are taught not to judge, it is to judge someone's heart, their ultimate legitimacy, their value, their motives... them as a person. We can't see into the human heart and don't know what peoples motives really are. We can guess at them, but can't know for sure.
But we are absolutely free (and in many cases obligated) to judge other peoples actions and decide whether they are good or bad, wise or foolish, legal or illegal. We hold them up to the law, to morality, to religious standards, professional standards and to standards of what is productive or wasteful.
Charlie Gibson behaved foolishly in his interview of Palin. His tone was condescending, he was factually wrong in his condescending questioning/commentary, and it was disrespectful of Palin.
Making a judgment on his actions, behavior and commentary is not sitting in judgment as Gibson as a person.
If we are not allowed to judge someones actions, the we need to go ahead and throw out the court system, the election system, the law enforcement system, ... well every system really.
Post a Comment