ABC Edits Palin Interview - Viewers don't get full context

[-Cp]

Gee, what a *SHOCK*:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:

[avatar4321]

I cant imagine why they would have to hide the truth like that...

[Kathianne]

Seems the Washington Post is doing similar, links at site:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_09_07-2008_09_13.shtml#1221312865




[Jonathan Adler, September 13, 2008 at 9:34am] Trackbacks
The Post Gets a Rewrite (But Doesn't Tell Its Readers):

On Friday, the Washington Post ran this story about Gov. Sarah Palin's speech before a brigade of soldiers bound for Iraq -- at least, that link is to the story that is on the Post's web page. But this is not the story as it originally appeared. As Bill Kristol notes here, the second paragraph of the story was rewritten -- and an entire sentence replaced -- to fix a gross error that dramatically distorted what Palin had said. Most egregiously, there is no indication on the web-version of the story that it was corrected, not even a note at the end of the piece. Whatever one thinks of the Post's reporting here, it should at least acknowledge that it changed the story's text to fix an error. If we bloggers are expected to disclose substantive revisions to our blog posts, shouldn't the MSM be held to the same standard?
26 Comments

[midcan5]

LOL - always an excuse, never an acknowledgment - too funny and too hypocritical.


Someday a child will ask why did you allow them to destroy the earth. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears and the natural beauty of our nation.

[Kathianne]

LOL - always an excuse, never an acknowledgment - too funny and too hypocritical.


Someday a child will ask why did you allow them to destroy the earth. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears and the natural beauty of our nation.
Clarify.

[avatar4321]

LOL - always an excuse, never an acknowledgment - too funny and too hypocritical.


Someday a child will ask why did you allow them to destroy the earth. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears and the natural beauty of our nation.

Excuse? who is excusing anything?

[emmett]

Libertarian NON-BIUSED point of view.


Headlines would read:

PALIN KO's GIBSON in 10. Sports fans were treated to a pretty dull fight this afternoon at the PALIN arena in Wasilla, ALaska. Charles Gibson, noted ABC commentator and obvious Barack Obama supporter was driven back time and time again by Palin.

Gibson was obviously frustrated as his intense efforts went unrewarded time after time. Finally Gibson was sent home packing. All he could do was alter the tapes of the interview which he and his staff did.






I hate it for you demmies but she laid his ass to absolute waste!

[stephanie]

LOL - always an excuse, never an acknowledgment - too funny and too hypocritical.


Someday a child will ask why did you allow them to destroy the earth. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears and the natural beauty of our nation.

Excuse..it a friggen fact jack..you are the one who is making excuses for the biased treatment that is given to a Republican..

I see you have no problem with that..:lame2:

[emmett]

LOL - always an excuse, never an acknowledgment - too funny and too hypocritical.


Someday a child will ask why did you allow them to destroy the earth. A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against Polar bears and the natural beauty of our nation.

Look dude......watch the interview! Watch the one ABC showed you then read the real transcript.........wht would they doctor it?

Smarten up man! They altered the interview. Pay especially close attention to the question about rather Palin has met heads of state. They altered her answer to say no when in fact her answer was yes.

You folks have reached a point that is comical. No discussion about issues just slander of a person who obviously more qualified to be president than the other three on the ticket. Wake up!

[KitchenKitten99]

What's really bad is that you can totally tell it was edited because whoever was the editor, did a very bad job of it.

You can tell by the inflections in her voice, that she was going to continue talking, but then stops all of a sudden when the camera faces Gibson again, almost like she was interrupted and not allowed to finish.

[Kathianne]

Editing is necessary, but in this case seems to have been done to mislead the public:

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

The edited parts are bolded, can't be missed and neither can the fact that the editing changed the answers.

[Kathianne]

Editing is necessary, but in this case seems to have been done to mislead the public:

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/

The edited parts are bolded, can't be missed and neither can the fact that the editing changed the answers.

UPI has never had the bias of Reuters or AP, thus I'm not surprised that they printed a response to ABC's attack:

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2008/09/12/ABCs_Gibson_grilled_Palin_hard_but_it_may_backfire/UPI-81241221234472/


ABC's Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire
By MARTIN SIEFF
Published: Sept. 12, 2008 at 11:47 AM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 (UPI) -- There were no surprises, no knockout zingers, but also no bloopers Thursday night in Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's first TV interview since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Charles Gibson of ABC News was out for blood and inherently applied a double-standard compared with the kid gloves George Stephanopoulos used on Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois on Sunday night.

Gibson was out to embarrass Palin and expose her presumed ignorance from the word go. By contrast, when Obama referred to his "Muslim faith" on Sunday and did not correct himself, Stephanopoulos rushed in at once to help him and emphasize that the senator had really meant to say his Christian faith.

By contrast, Gibson tried to embarrass Palin by referring to her Christian faith in asking people to pray for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Palin countered by pointing out she was following the precedent set by Abraham Lincoln....

...Tactically, she made the mistake of trying to be friendly and informal with Gibson, who assumed a superior, professorial and critical stance toward her. She would have been far better going on the attack to rattle him.

The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.

Gibson's aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright....

...The context of the increasingly desperate -- and ugly -- attacks on Palin and her alleged lack of experience is that the Obama bandwagon, which swept all before it from the Iowa caucuses through the end of June, is now stalling badly and, even more worrying for the Democrats, the malaise may be spreading to the congressional races.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has the Democrats only 3 points up on the Republicans on the question of which party people would vote for today in their congressional district.

Indeed, the Obama campaign is now saying it is ready to take the gloves off against McCain. They rolled out a new ad Friday mocking McCain as out of touch and old-fashioned, even though it was McCain who picked a young woman as a running mate while Obama opted for an old white guy who's been sitting in the Senate for 36 years. With more than 50 days still to go until the actual election, it appears dangerously early in the campaign for the Obama camp to go negative, especially as so much of his appeal has been based on rising above the old negatives to begin with. Isn't it early in the campaign to resort to that? Is it a sign of panic?

...

[-Cp]

I actually started a thread about this here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17706

[Kathianne]

I actually started a thread about this here:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=17706

Sorry about that, thought I'd seen it. Merged.

[bullypulpit]

Why do all the links seem to invariably lead back to RWN Mark Levin's website? And he doesn't source his material at all.

[Kathianne]

Why do all the links seem to invariably lead back to RWN Mark Levin's website? And he doesn't source his material at all.

You think that the transcript is fake?