October 1st 2008
Media Bias #78
Ifell And The Anticipation Of Bias
In a Media Bias 2008 first, we’re going out on the limb - not too far out on the limb, don’t worry - and are predicting that PBS’ Gwen Ifell, who is set to moderate the VP debate tomorrow, will be biased against Sarah Palin.
Instapundit thinks so, as does Michelle Malkin, WND, Sister Toldjah, Jules Crittenden and dozens of others. Heck, if you haven’t read about Ifell in the last 24 hours, where have you been. Most of the complaints surround her upcoming book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, due to be published just after inauguration day. This isn’t just bias; it’s a huge conflict of interest. If Obama doesn’t break through in the election and is just another loser, what do you suppose it will do to the sales of a book that will hit the shelves just as John and Cindy move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.?
Ifell’s 2009 income depends in large part on what happens on November 3, 2008. But she’ll have none of this bias or conflict of interest talk; she and all her PBS colleagues tell us she well be objective. Well, this exchange from the last VP debate, which Ifell also moderated, qualifies as objective by the journalistic definition:
During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, “I can respond, Gwen, but it’s going to take more than 30 seconds.”
“Well, that’s all you’ve got,” she told Cheney.
Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they “thought I was being snippy to Cheney.” She explained that wasn’t her intent. (WND)
She was just stating the rules, right? Nothing to complain about here folks, just move on.
Ifell covered Palin’s speech at the GOP convention. If I gave you the transcript you’d think it was just fine; but if you look at the video, which Michelle Malkin posted this morning, you see something quite different:
A barely suppressed sneer clouds Ifell’s face throughout the snippet. Will she be able to wipe it off her face Thursday? Why should we even have to ask the question? Why is someone so heavily agendized being allowed anywhere close to the moderator’s seat?
Media Bias 2008 covers pro-Obama media bias in the presidential campaign. Items are listed from most recent to oldest; the numbering reflects this and is not a ranking. Send Media Bias 2008 examples via “comments”‘ below, or to email2laer [@] yahoo [dot] com.
Posted in Media Bias 2008 | 6 Comments » | 
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
October 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
October 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Comments
October 1st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Most of the complaints surround her upcoming book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, due to be published just after inauguration day. This isn’t just biasMost of the complaints surround her upcoming book, Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, due to be published just after inauguration day. This isn’t just bias. (the article)She got money, her book rights, and a book. She got both actual and apparent bias. She hid her actual bias from one of the parties at least. Legally, she would have been thrown out from even refereeing a baseball game involving Obama.Career-wise, she should look for a job in an unrelated field.Politically…
October 30th, 2008 at 12:03 am
When your best sources are WND and Michelle Malkin, you’re already in trouble.
When you consistently misspell Gwen Ifill’s name as “Ifell”, you just lose. How can you claim to have done research on a person whose name you still don’t know?
October 30th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Easy; carelessness. Thanks for pointing it out, but it doesn’t destroy the argument - it just tells me to double-check spelling.
October 30th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Oh, and the New York Times and CNN are supposed to be trustworthy sources in this election. Puuuuleeeeze. (I misspelled that on purpose.)