September 11th 2008
Charles Gibson, The Endlessly Barking Dog
W
hen we train corporate execs for media confrontations, one of the reporters we always prepare them for is the one we’ve called the endlessly barking dog.
You may know him as Charles Gibson.
Reporters that are endlessly barking dogs ask the same question multiple times. There are only two reasons why they do this. First, they hope that in one of the answers the interviewee will make a misstatement that will make a good lead for the next day’s story. Second, they hope the interviewee will blow up, start screaming and let something rip that will make a headline across the top of page one.
You witnessed the endlessly barking dog style of journalism in Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin.
He came out the doggy door yapping seven questions on the “are you ready to serve line.” If I had coached Palin, on the fourth question, she would have said, “Now Charlie, you’ve asked that question four times now, and I’ve given you three clear and consistent answers so far. Do I really need to answer it again?”
Had she done that, the rest of the interview would have changed, and the ball would have been very much in her court. But she didn’t, and he kept yapping.
Next came three questions on Russia and Georgia, followed six on the Bush Doctrine - which would have been three if Palin hadn’t stumbled. It seemed apparent that she didn’t know or couldn’t remember what the Bush doctrine was, so the first three questions involved Gibson probing her knowledge. (Maybe she didn’t stumble - see my second thoughts.) It certainly looked like she didn’t know. Whether she knows or not, it’s not particularly troubling that a governor from Alaska doesn’t know the exact definition of the Bush Doctrine - the right of preemptive strikes to protect our national security - but it’s very troubling that her handlers didn’t brief her on it.
The final three questions in this series were classic dog-yapping, on our right to attack Pakistan. Her answers weren’t as strong as they should have been, so if she had cut off the repeat questions early in the interview, she would have looked stronger at this point.
Gibson closed by barking out three questions on whether she thought we were fighting a “holy war” in Iraq, which she handled very well.
Gibson had the first crack at the most sought-after interview in America and he ended up asking just five or six questions because his motivation wasn’t to illuminate Sarah Palin to us, it was to create a gaffe or worse. That’s why yapping reporters yap. He didn’t get what he wanted, and we didn’t get what we wanted.
A perfect example of the MSM at work, isn’t it?
Two more points: First, Gibson’s tone was cold and condescending, a sharp contrast from the interested, engaged persona of Bill O’Reilly when he interviewed Obama. O’Reilly was seeking information, to nail down what Obama really believed, as opposed to the patter. Gibson personified the elitism of the New York media with the dripping flatness of his tone, his misunderstanding of central American values (defending America, believing God has a plan), and his assuredness that the only valid passport to the presidency is an American passport with tons of visas stamped on its pages.
Second, Gibson proved my point that hostile questions of Palin are exactly the same questions that should be asked of Obama.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-twitter-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Yahoo Buzz]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-buzz-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to Digg]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-digg-micro3.png){kind=icon}
![[Post to StumbleUpon]](http://www.cheatseekingmissiles.com/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/icons/tt-su-micro3.png){kind=icon}
Posted in 2008, Media bias, Messaging, Palin | 6 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
September 12th, 2008 at 7:44 am
September 12th, 2008 at 9:14 am
September 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
September 24th, 2008 at 6:56 am
September 25th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Comments
September 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
I like your point about Gibson being the endlessly barking dog. I agree that Palin should have told him that she already answered the question and put him in his place. Gibson acted like a know-it-all, biased snob who had no respect for Palin.I disagree with you about Gibson’s interpretation of the Bush Doctrine. It does seem that Palin dodged the question and didn’t know what he was asking, however, Gibson did not properly state the current Bush Doctrine. Give a read at Townhall.com for the article entitled, “Charlie Gibson’s Gaffee” by Charles Krauthammer. He states that there are 4 interpretations of the Bush Doctrine, and that Charlie Gibson threw out the more current and recognized new meaning of the term and chose a latter interpretation.Thanks for your views.Colleen Sahlas, AttorneyOak Park, IL