Gwen Ifill has done solid, important journalism. She’ll likely be a good, tough, and neutral moderator to the vice-presidential debate. Let’s set that aside, for now.
Conflict of interest is often about appearances. There appears, to us, to be a conflict in Ifill moderating tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate. Here’s why:
- Ifill’s upcoming book is called “The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” It, apparently, “surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians [like Newark Mayor Corey Booker and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick] forging a bold new path to political power.”
- The book apparently will be published on January 20th, 2009, Inauguration Day.
- It stands to reason that a book with such a title would sell better if a certain person is inaugurated on that day.
We’d like to hear from Ifill. We’re going to try to reach her now.
We’ve also set aside several other related questions that are being raised in various places online, on cable, and elsewhere, including: why is this becoming a “thing” now, when Ifill’s book was reported on well before Ifill was selected as the moderator, and the McCain campaign might have raised this earlier if it bothered them? What about, say, CBS’s Bob Schieffer and his relationship to George W. Bush? Schieffer moderated a debate back in 2004. Etc. Much of that sounds like the usual political noise. But the financial part seems real. Gwen?
UPDATE: A Newshour spokeswoman returned my call to Ifill. The spokeswoman said that “as a journalist, Gwen has to focus on the task at hand: preparing for the debate” (adding that “way before this issue came up, [Ifill] decided not to do interviews” in advance of the debate). I asked the spokeswoman about the appearance of conflict and she replied that Ifill had “proven herself to be fair and balanced and no doubt will be” tomorrow night.
I was then bumped up to the spokeswoman’s boss who said that Ifill had “set this aside,” was focusing on debate prep, and that he didn’t “think Gwen is in a position” to talk to me about this but that he would try to reach her and ask.
If I hear anything futher, I’ll update again.
ok guys, gwen has always seemed great, but the headline is...
"MODERATOR HAS FINANCIAL INTEREST IN OUTCOME OF DEBATE"
why is the public having to educate the journalists on this one?
Posted by hoonbelly on Wed 1 Oct 2008 at 02:42 PM
I can’t believe that Gwen Ifill will be the Moderator for this VP debates! How can she be bias if she has a monetary investment in this debate? She has a book that she is writing about African leaders and which one is Barack Obama. If he does win the Presendency, her sells of her book will sky rocket. So it looks like she does have some investment, literally, in one candidate. She knew that she was writing this book about Obama and exsused herself from the debate.
Don’t call me a racist, because I am not! I have an adopted sister that is African American and five nephews and a niece, all of which I love very much, so don’t play that race card! I’d hoped for a equal debate between Biden and Palin, but I have serious doubts now!
Posted by Tammy on Wed 1 Oct 2008 at 06:09 PM
I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY ARE ALLOWING HER TO DO THIS, NOW.
Posted by CAROL on Wed 1 Oct 2008 at 09:32 PM
I cannot believe that this could be considered fair when she has financial gains at stake with her new book. (Obama's name appears in the title!!) Is it not obvious who she wants to win? Don't even think about playing the RACE CARD! This is ridiculous! From what I have read, this woman loves Obama! How on earth is this a fair debate? Get someone else. QUICK!
Posted by Kerrie Langheier on Wed 1 Oct 2008 at 10:16 PM
Can there not be anything fair and unbiased regarding the media on this campaign? Someone tell Obama to put away his advertising money. He won't need it, the media has got it covered!
The woman has a book coming out with Obama's name in the title!!! Hello? Is ther nothing wrong with this?
Posted by Kerrie Langheier on Wed 1 Oct 2008 at 10:22 PM
I cannot support this, especially if Gwen Ifill serves as moderator and is the only person asking questions. In addition to the obvious reasons, the controversy surrounding her selection will serve as a distraction to what should be the focus during and after the debate - the candidates and the issues.
Posted by G. McDevitt on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:07 AM
Why is McCain whining about this now? The book was announced in July or August.
If Ifill goes, how about Bob Schieffer? His brother was appointed ambassador by GW Bush. Any conflict there?
Posted by ThresherK on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 09:45 AM
Obama will be famous if he loses too. The book is about Blacks in politics. Do you think it possible that the book will sell well if he loses? I think it would still be a popular book but for a different reason - to find out what went wrong.
Posted by Keith52 on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 11:16 AM
Obama will be famous if he loses too. The book is about Blacks in politics. Do you think it possible that the book will sell well if he loses? I think it would still be a popular book but for a different reason - to find out what went wrong.
Posted by Keith52 on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 11:17 AM
Ifill stands to make tons of money if Obama wins and very little if he looses. Period. She has a financial interest in seeing his campaign do better. Even larger than this story however, is that this type of ethics breach is all to common among today's left-wing activist "journalists".
Posted by Cory on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 11:35 AM
Is there a class you all take that stresses over and over again that outlets like Media Matters for America are the default fall back sources to rebut anything even remotely critical of a democrat? Seriously.
Anyhoo, I just read one of the prepared questions that Ifill is going to ask tonight:
Governor Palin, just who do you think you are to question the infallibility of the silky chocolate demigod, his holiest of holies, Barack (D-Heavan)?
Posted by Carl Stevens on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 11:47 AM
Keith - The problem with the VP debate is NOT Obama, it is Ifill. Try to keep up.
Posted by David on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 12:05 PM
One could argue, with equal emphasis, that Palin has the advantage because the interviewer is a woman. Remember, Obama isn't in this debate, Palin is.
Posted by Bruce Browne on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 01:31 PM
This is clearly a conflict. How much would you like to bet the questions Palin gets are of the "Got You" type while slow (I am smarter then you) Joe Biden gets nothing but softballs.
Posted by Chris on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 01:34 PM
Barack Obama will be figure of great interest whether he is elected or not. The people who support his candidacy will not lose interest in him should McCain win. In fact if McCain were in office Democratic leadership would be extrememly important.I do not think this is a problem at all. I believe it is being hyped to get another possible cover for Palin's weaknesses. More diversion!
Posted by JStewart on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:17 PM
ThresherK said "Why is McCain whining about this now? The book was announced in July or August."
Ifill admitted she did not inform the Commission for Debates about her book. Inadvertent or not, that is a disqualifier.
Posted by Flyoverman on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:20 PM
What's most frightening is her apparent belief that there is no ethical problem here. That is common among the Mainstream Media who perceive no problem in unabased partisanship in their journalism.
This is a genuinely frightening devolution for the once-respected Fourth Estate.
Posted by BradG on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:26 PM
One could argue that Palin had an advantage with Ifill because both are women, but only if Ifill had a track record of fawning over Palin because she was a woman, and had just written a book about the age of Palin, with the thesis that Palin's feminism is the basis for the dawning of a new age.
But no... Ifill is a known lib with a track record of fawning over Obama... and a book fawning over Obama... and a magazine article fawning over Obama...
Puhlease.
Posted by MB on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:28 PM
I was wondering why people think McCain is supposed to do a background check on the moderator. Both parties should be able to rely on the integrity of anyone in this position. Gwen Ifill should have given a full disclosure when she knew she was being considered. The real question is: Had she given a full disclosure in the beginning, would she be the moderator tonight?
Posted by PStar on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:35 PM
The only thing I can't believe is that they'd be so obvious. The MSM is very clearly in the tank for BHO, but this seems like they're tipping their hand a bit too much. Do they think it's so late in the game that they can be so obvious about it?
If anyone wants to do something about this, go out and ask BHO some of the questions the MSM is too corrupt to ask. Get it on video and upload it on Youtube. We need to do the job the MSM is too crooked to do:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/008071.html
Posted by 24AheadDotCom on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:39 PM
Responding to ThresherK Thu 2 Oct 2008 09:45 AM "Why is McCain whining about this now? The book was announced in July or August. ... "
ThresherK,
John McCain is not whining about this. I watched him actually defend Ifil, praise her as a friend and excellent journalist, and claim that he believes that she will be fair.
In other words, he defends her and thinks it is okay. He never whined about this.
ThresherK said, " ... If Ifill goes, how about Bob Schieffer? His brother was appointed ambassador by GW Bush. Any conflict there?"
George W. Bush has already appeared in that debate and he has been elected. Bush cannot run for president again.
Whether you think it is fair or unfair, the fact is, two wrongs don't make a right, so finding alleged impropriety in another case does not excuse the same in the current case.
Posted by William on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:41 PM
Her failure to disclose her book and her financial stake in the outcome of the election automatically disqualifies her, just as if she'd lied on her resume. It is the unique arrogance of MSM "journalists" and their liberal enablers that they seen nothing at all wrong with either her financial stake in the election or her authorship of a glowing portrait of Obamas. Liberals are so confident in their righteousness that the rules which others live by just don't apply to them, as long as it advances a liberal cause and leads to the election of The Chosen One. Disgusting.
Posted by Darwin Akbar on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:41 PM
Interesting. When I rearrange Gwen's name is get "Shill."
Posted by Schratboy on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:46 PM
Can someone please find me a journalist who does not have a stake or is bias for Obama winning this election? I could not find one either, America wakeup, the anti-christ is ahead in the polls, thanks to the Media, and the elites in Washington D.C, something must be in the works, hell, Obama is more popular than Jesus today. Piss Gwen Ifill off and vote for McCain.
Posted by Victor Flores on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 02:52 PM
Quoting Carl Stevens Thu 2 Oct 2008 11:47 AM, "Anyhoo, I just read one of the prepared questions that Ifill is going to ask tonight:
Governor Palin, just who do you think you are to question the infallibility of the silky chocolate demigod, his holiest of holies, Barack (D-Heavan)?
Carl,
Thanks for the clever, and humorous comment.
I read some of the questions as well.
"Mrs. Palin, Will you please tell me who the Supreme Court Justices were in the case Dred Scott v Sanford (Dred Scott Decision - 1857), Plessy v Ferguson (1896) (and please also recite, word for word, Justice Blackmun's Majority Opinion in the Supreme Court Case "Roe v Wade."
Explain the cases, their content, purpose, and participants.
Also, please tell us what the Sister case, Doe v Bolton, was about, and who Doe is in Doe v Bolton, and who Roe is in Roe v Wade, where they went to school, what their children's names are, and what their Credit Card Account Numbers are.
"Who was the great-great-grandaughter of Nelson Mandella's neighbor's father's sister's husband's nephew's great-great-grandfather's neighbor's best friend?"
Please do all this while you play your flute, while standing on your head, while riding a mini-unicycle 40 feet above the ground on a circus tightrope."
Posted by William on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 03:24 PM
Regardless of whether you are a Democrat or Republican, this should bother you. There are little to no ethics left in journalism these days. What is going on with Gwen Ifill in this debate is akin to an Umpire in a baseball game betting against(or on in Gwen's case) one of the teams playing. Imagine if people found out about that BEFORE the game and the MLB said, "That won't affect his calling of a fair game." If Gwen were writing a book named "The Scotch Irish: Politics in the time of John McCain", you all know Gwen would be removed from moderating duties immediatley.
This is the pathetic state of journalism as it stands today. William Randolf Hearst would be only too proud.
Posted by ben on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 03:35 PM
Book sales before country.
Posted by Ron on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 03:39 PM
Tonight Gov. Palin should bring a copy of Gwen's book to the debate. Ask her to autograph the book & then place it on the podium for the duration of the debate. (How unnerving this would be for both Biden & Gwen!)
Posted by Karen on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 03:40 PM
Her book won't sell much unless there is a big upswing of black readers.
Posted by jack on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:11 PM
Republicans have nothing to complain about. They approved her as a moderator when they could have vetoed her weeks ago. Republicans got the type of debate that they wanted (short answer form). This book has been known about for months. Any high ranking republican who claims they didn't know about the book is either lying or incompetent/doesn't know how to use google.
Posted by Frank on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:14 PM
Gwen bears the onus for disclosing potential conflicts of interest. It should not be up to the debate commission or the campaigns to ferret this out. Perhaps it does point out that Republicans are too principled and expect that others are as well.
Posted by MR on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:22 PM
The news about Ifil's book was in the news a couple of months ago BEFORE she was selected to moderate this debate. It is rather bizzare that the campaign is making hay of this today
Posted by Joel C on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:22 PM
From Bob Lewis, Dallas, Texas
rclewis1@aol.com
'Brilliant' Ifill Cousin Scours Palin As 'Offensive to Black Women'
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
October 2, 2008 - 06:48 ET
Here are more signs Sarah Palin could face an uphill battle with PBS host Gwen Ifill. Professor Sherrilyn Ifill of the University of Maryland Law School, whom Gwen Ifill has lauded as "my brilliant baby cousin," has written that black women are not buying Sarah Palin’s "false claims to feminism" and is portrayed as too perfect: "when women who are privileged present as though they have it all together, it’s offensive to black women." (Photo from Soros.com)
The Community Times, a suburban Maryland newspaper, found Professor Ifill was ardently opposed to the Alaska governor when they did an e-mail interview:
"From the first day, Palin presented herself as shooting a bear in the morning, field dressing it, cooking up the breakfast, diapering the babies, passing legislation in the afternoon, cleaning the house, satisfying her husband, etc., etc., etc. And it's just not true," she wrote in an e-mail interview. "It's hard to be an average working mom, really hard. And when women who are privileged present as though they have it all together, it's offensive to black women."
Posted by RUFUS on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:24 PM
Um, she can still write the book if Obama loses.
Posted by Ron on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:25 PM
sarah palin hasd the smarts and drive to refresh the vice presidents spot and motivate it into a important position. substance is impoortant.
Posted by tryg r angell on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:29 PM
Journalists have a code of ethics. It's up to the journalist to reveal conflict of interest or recuse themselves. Ifill is a dishonest, self serving person who has already tried to turn the tables to racism if anyone complains. This is why racism exists and she is part of the problem.
Posted by Susan on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 04:30 PM
I like to talk about stool.
Posted by Fecal McStool on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 05:14 PM
Um, she can still write the book if Obama loses
And it will see approximately 20 copies, all to family members. She has a financial stake in the Obama/Biden ticket prevailing in November. Otherwise, why release the book on inauguration day?
Posted by Gene on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 05:28 PM
Come on, cut the lady some slack. After all, iit isn't like she forged some documents or something.
Posted by Dan Rather on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 05:44 PM
I find it amazing that the level of journalistic ethics has fallen to such a low level that Ifill is getting any support at all. The MSM has sown the seeds of its own destruction and future irrelevance.
Posted by in_awe on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 06:09 PM
Do you think we would be getting this same reasoned approach if this was a right wing conservative. How do they teach double standards in Journalism? It must be the core of their curriculum.
Posted by r higley on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 06:28 PM
If you're wondering why all the right wing fuss all of a sudden on CJR, this article got linked to from NRO's The Corner.
Media bias is the least of Palin's problems. Seeing righties defend one of the weakest candidates for President in the televised age is priceless.
Posted by circusboy on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 06:38 PM
How is this different from Ifill having a $500,000 bet on Intrade that Obama wins the election?
She has a direct financial interest in seeing Obama win. This is worse than Pete Rose betting on baseball.
Posted by JB on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 06:47 PM
Ethical standards don't apply to progressive black folks. Ifill is black and progressive. No problem. QED
Posted by Happy Mail on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 06:47 PM
this is like the typical 60 minutes story about some topic for which the parent company is about to release a new book title
Posted by smilek on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:01 PM
How do you suppose Gwen will be biased with Millions of people watching?? Rep. whiners unite!
Posted by dem with brains on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:09 PM
Q: Why is mainstream journalism losing the respect of the American public, while circulation falls and ratings plummet?
A: Bias, incompetence and lousy judgment.
Posted by erasmus on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:13 PM
Um, some of you might want to consider the possibility that Ms. Ifill's book might not be about Obama at all, even though his name is in the title. Instead, and this might require a broader perspective than might be possible for you, it might be possible that her book is about the rising power of african-american politicians in the wake of an Obama candidacy. It might simply be a profile of some other african-american politicians and how the fact that Obama became a serious candidate for the presidency has affected the ability of such politicians to be taken seriously. I don't know because I haven't read the book. AND NEITHER HAVE ANY OF YOU!!!
Gwen Ifill has always been a fair and unbiased journalist from what I have seen of her, which has been a lot. Can any of you point to an instance where she has been unfair in any way in her reporting? So let's stop with the general charges without any support (and a statement about her pride in her cousin doesn't count as being unfair -- if your cousin became a professor of law at the University of Maryland, you too would likely be proud, no matter his or her politics).
Just watch the debate and then you can unfairly judge all you want...
Posted by DM Inf on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:26 PM
It's obvious. This is a glaring conflict of interest and a debasing ethical lapse on the part of Ifill. That said, I think the McCain campaign is hoping that a biased performance by Ifill against Palin will generate more widespread public sympathy for Palin. It's an "anti-media" strategy the campaign seems to be deploying. Also, if Palin performs well at all, the campaign can claim that she did so in spite of the bias against her. It's also an excuse for a poor performance by Palin.
Posted by Mike Wescott on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:35 PM
Circusboy -- forget commenting about the 'right wing fuss' in the comments section and deal with the substance of the present CJR article. It isn't only right wing loons like me who see the conflict of interest here.
Posted by jplodine on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:38 PM
Sounds like Ifill's people gave you the run-around, Liz.
She has a book that, based on the title and timing of the release, presumes a certain outcome, and her financial fortunes are impacted by that outcome. This isn't just an appearance of a conflict of interest, it's a real and legitimate conflict of interest.
Posted by Bird Dog on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:40 PM
The question shouldn't be whether Ms Ifil believes she has a conflict of interest but rather did she provide full disclosure to the commission in advance of their selection. If she did then she did her duty. If she didn't then she needs to jettison all claims of being a "true professional" on this.
Posted by Russ on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:50 PM
Why does everyone go with the assumption that Gwen Ifill is fair? Do you watch the show she moderates? It's a hate Bush fest! The journalists on the panel should criticize any political figure worth criticizing, but they don't. Watch the show, listen to waht's said, watch the body language, watch the attitude. I doubt that anyone on it has ever voted for a republican.
Nonetheless, every news story on the Ifill topic has at least a sentence on how she is considered a great, unbiased journalist. of course, none of the stories cite any evidence, the writers just use phrases like "she is viewed as..." or "she is considered to be..." without attribution. In other words, it's the opinion of the writer of the story that Ifill is unbiased. What a joke.
Posted by zachgarber on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:52 PM
It's not an "apparent" conflict. It's an actual conflict: she has a financial stake in one side doing better. Can you imagine a judge responding to the claim that he's biased because he owns stock in the defendant with, "I'm setting that aside." Isn't that just another way of saying, "Ms. Ifill is ducking the question." Just what journalists always insist they don't let other people do.
Posted by Dave H on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:57 PM
What law would Ifil have broken if she's handed the questions over to Obama's campaign in advance? Is there a contract in place that would prevent this?
It is not only what she will ask and not ask... it is what she may have done... these are the questions that conflicts of interest cause and everyone involved is foolish for letting her continue.
Posted by Bryher on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:57 PM
For DM Inf:
Yes, here are 2 examples of ifill's bias.
Recent: Watch her sign-off reaction to the Palin speech at the Republican convention. She has nothing positive to say, and she looks disgusted. Argue against the interpretation.
Old: Watch the 1992/93 documentary "The War Room" about Carville and Stephanopolus. There is a scene where Stephanopolus is talking to about 5 journalists post-debate. He's laughing it up with them like it's a dinner party. Ifill is oneo f them. I challenge you to find a similar example involving journalists and a reubhlican pol or staffer.
There are examples weekly on the show she moderates.
Posted by zachgarber on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 07:59 PM
Ms Ifill has a conflict of interest. She did not alert any of the participants to the conflict. She does not admit that there is a conflict of interest. Ergo, her actions indicate that the conflict is substantive. At this late date, another more ethical person would have resigned. Since she did not it is damning on her character and brings into question her ability to act as an just moderator.
It says more about the blindness of the media that there isn't more outcry about Ifill's lack of judgement and ethical misbehavior.
Posted by jkstewart2 on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:00 PM
Sadly, compared to how much the rest of the MSM is in the tank for Obama, this doesn't even qualify as a conflict of interest.
Posted by KMan on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:02 PM
Once again, saying she is biased don't make it so. By the way, the News Hour has as many Republican politicians and other conservatives on it than it does Democrats and liberals. But if YOU have ever watched the show, you will note that it is not your typical shouting match, but actually tries to explore issues in depth, from both sides. Just because the conservatives they invite on the show don't yell and belittle all other views but actually can converse in whole sentences does not make them any less conservative.
There have been many republicans and conservatives who have come out in support of her fairness and professionalism around this controversy, including a former member of the McCain campaign, but again, these might be conservatives who have a brain. There actually are a large number of them, but apparently they don't comment here.
Posted by DM Inf on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:02 PM
I've worked in media for thirteen years.
There is no question that Ifill should never have accepted the role of moderator for this debate.
Conflict of interest does not have to be proven. Simply the reasonable perception of it is sufficient to shadow and taint a debate.
Moreover, this sets an unhealthy precedent for debates in future elections.
Posted by Ahron on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:07 PM
DM Inf:
And just because you say she is unbiased doesn't make it so. I have and do watch her show. It's from a left perspective, as is the perspective of most of the panel every week.
And you did not rebut one point I made. Again, look at her sign-off from the Reublican campaign after Palin's speech. Palin's speech was a huge success, but Ifill looks like she just might puke, and says zero that's positive. Can you rebut that?
And why do you submit the shouting red-herring? Brit Hume's news hour had a 15 minute discussion every night sans shouting, with Mora Liason or Juan Williams in tow each evening.
And the republicans who say she is great are who exactly?
Posted by zachgarber on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:08 PM
She's already written a glowing profile of Obama and his family. Why was she ever considered for this? Why doesn't she step down?
Posted by Rachel Cohen on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:13 PM
Two more brief points:
Switch the party affiliation and situation: a conservative is the moderator of a VP debate and she has a book coming out on inaugaration day about John McCain. The hue and cry would be overwhelming.
If you have to do mental gymnastics to rationalize why this isn't a problem for Ifill, then it probaly IS a problem for Ifill.
Posted by zachgarber on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:19 PM
Ifill is strongly biased in favor of Obama. All one has to do is look at her appearance on PBS immediatly after Palin's speech at the RNC convention. The look of disgust border on tears is utterly amazing.
Posted by Fisher on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:22 PM
'Appears to be a conflict'? What are they teaching in J-school these days? Of course it's a conflict.
Funny thing is, if Palin's savvy, she'll take advantage of it. Bias is a powerful tool for a candidate. Look at the support the Democrats have garnered anytime something negative was written.
If Ifill were writing a book about McCain, the Netroots would be invading conservatives' emails and taking stray puppies to register to vote (and helping those little paws fill in the bubbles).
Newspapers are tanking and so are many magazines, with the exception of some women's glossies. Why? They've alienated their base.
Sad.
Posted by Kay B. Day on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:25 PM
I would like to add that I am not saying Ifill is biased. Far from it. I am saying that whether she is or she isn't is immaterial to the situation at hand.
Conflict of interest ethical norms mean that we never put someone in a position where their impartiality could be questioned by their own self interest.
A person who is in jeopardy of conflict of interest can no longer be considered an impartial third-party to a dispute. That person has a vested PERSONAL interest in the outcome (even if it is only slight) and that is not what you are looking for in a moderator.
Posted by Ahron on Thu 2 Oct 2008 at 08:31 PM
Her book is not complete, and the section regarding the outcome of the election is not yet written. So for all other aforementioned reasons, plus, granting oneself permisssion to participate in the shaping of the outcome, she has a conflict and should have recused herself.
For news reporting, I have no problem with Gwen and enjoy the their PBS broadcast. I find it insightful and further in depth than most all other hourly reporting. But this is not a news broadcast.
And maybe the giant throbbing thrill going up her leg she got from the Great One's mere presence is what broke it.
Posted by winoceros on Fri 3 Oct 2008 at 08:49 AM
Some of you people are so uneducated about this issue. Gwen's book was announced MONTHS ago!!! It was no secret unless you call talking about it openly in an interview a secret! The book is about Blacks in politics - which includes Obama people!! He is Black and he is in politics. Even if he loses, he has gone above where any other Black person has gone in politics. That is what her book is about. It isn't an anti-McCain book and it isn't a pro-Obama book. It is simply a book that examines race in the US and it's context given the current political climate. Get a grip people! Gwen is a journalist with a long career behind her who is fair and balanced in her approach with politicians.
Posted by KM on Fri 3 Oct 2008 at 04:29 PM
KM
Some of us are uneducated about this issue???
You have entirely missed the POINT of the issue with your response.
The point is: Gwen put her name in the pool of potential moderators knowing that she was penning a book about one of the two Presidential candidates. That is beyond outrageous.
Whether she can be fair or not is irrelevant. Whether it was known in advance is irrelevant. Whether it is pro-Obama is irrelevant (although with "In the Age of Obama" as a subtitle, I don't see how you can claim it isn't going to be pro-Obama).
If you want to call people uneducated, at least understand what the real issue is.
Posted by Right Again on Sat 4 Oct 2008 at 08:03 AM
I watch the Newshour every night and Gwen is good, BUT I have seen her get pissy towards a guest who's comments about some black issue she obviously didn't care for.
Posted by john favre on Sun 5 Oct 2008 at 10:24 AM