Charles Gibson’s Bias
By Allie Duzett | November 18, 2009
Recently Charles Gibson of World News had some things to say about the “news business” and its customers. From the Media Research Center:
World News anchor Charles Gibson admitted on Tuesday [November 10], “I worry about the lack of objectivity and the future of the news business.” According to the Boston Herald, the ABC host spoke before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and said of Fox News and MSNBC: “I don’t like the fact that they’re delivering news based on the conviction of its viewers.” He also derided some viewers who “watch news that plays to their own prejudices.”
These are strong words coming from a guy who only has a job because of “prejudiced” viewers.
Gibson might be “worried” about “lack of objectivity” in the news, but that sure hasn’t stopped him in the past from editorializing on supposedly objective news. Consider his coverage of Sarah Palin in comparison to his coverage of President Obama as one example. From Common Ground Politics:
Even the camera angle was designed to be prejudiced against Palin. She is filmed from the side and slightly with her back to the camera. Although there are close ups of her face the long shot shows her back to the camera. It seems filming her with her back to the camera was meant to make her appear less likeable. In contrast, the film crew placed the long shot camera facing Obama so at all times when he is speaking the camera looks him in the face rather than looking at his back.
Gibson’s questions to Obama included such hard-hitters as “Is the hardest part of all this behind you or ahead of you?” and “What did you think of the Clinton speech?” He really pried for answers when he asked, “Has the joyfulness of [the presidential nomination] hit home yet? Do you take joy from it?”
In contrast, check out the first few interactions between Palin and Gibson during their interview together:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.
GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
Interesting. For Obama, the toughest question Gibson can come up with is “are you happy about winning?” For Palin, Gibson just has to ask if hubris drove her to accept the Republican vice presidential nomination.
But Gibson’s bias has not only extended to Sarah Palin. As the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters pointed out, when President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, Gibson raved about "the Nobel Committee feeling that he has inspired a new sense in the world”—and also mentioned how “humble” Obama was in his acceptance of the award.
However, in reality, perhaps the most “humble” thing President Obama could have done was turn the Peace Prize down, and allow it to go to someone who actually deserved it. The Peace Prize doesn’t just come with prestige, after all; it also comes with over a million dollars in prize money. Other nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize this year included an African gynecologist treating victims of sexual terrorism, and a woman who risks her life daily for the schools she created to educate girls and women in relatively misogynistic (and formerly Taliban-ruled) Afghanistan.
Is it really “humble,” as Charles Gibson claimed, for the President of the United States to accept a prize—and the money and prestige that goes with that prize—when compared with other nominees? I would love to see a serious argument that Obama has done more for individuals in the world than Dr. Denis Mukwege, who has treated over 21,000 victims of sexual violence and torture in Congo. While President Obama has yet to tell the world where his $1.4 million in Peace Prize winnings will go—as recently as October 27th, people were still trying to get their hands on the money—I think it is safe to say that by now, Dr. Mukwege would have put that money to good use helping the thousands of women in central Africa who are sexually terrorized and tortured every day. Perhaps it would have been more “humble” for President Obama to at least donate the money to Dr. Mukwege’s efforts.
A final example of Gibson’s bias (although there are countless more, to be sure) would be his complete avoidance of the ACORN story broken by Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe. As the Media Research Center explained:
On September 15, 2009, five days after a massive story about ACORN and corruption broke, the anchor was interviewed on a Chicago radio station and asked about lack of coverage.
He laughingly dismissed, "I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning."
Gibson is just another liberal whose bias extends to his reporting, despite any claims of objective journalism. He ignores major stories, favors pet interviewees, demonizes those he disagrees with, and lovingly fawns over President Obama at the drop of a hat. For a man who is so “worried” about the future of the news business, perhaps he should look at his own “lack of objectivity” first.
Allie Duzett is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.
10 Comments | Post a Comment
I think everyone would enjoy such an interview, particularly the writers for The Daily Show and Colbert Report!
15 minutes for ole Caribou Barbie to fall all over her stupid tongue and make one moronic comment after another and they would have enough comic material to last the rest of the season!
It’s really amazing to think that she represents the ‘brightest star’ in the GOP! They certainly had to look pretty hard to find a human being that was actually dumber than Bush, but they found her!
You people may never hold high office again!
Oh my! It’s adjective man again with his self-described profundities. I bet the cynical one has little teddy bears on his jammies.
Liberal feminists hate Palin because she is; attractive, pro-life, NRA member, mother of five, has a good husband and a strong marriage and could kick their ass any day of the week.
Liberal males (can’t quite call them men) hate her because she could kick their ass any day of the week. And that include the black anointed one.
Hate is a destructive and negative emotion, we on the left have no time for such nonsense. For the brain damaged members of the right however, it’s part of their triathalon, along with lying and being hypocritical.
We find Princess Not-So Bright to be extremely amusing.
Attractive is a subjective measure, I certainly wouldn’t describe her that way, but whatever floats your boat. Most conservative men appear to prefer little boys to women anyway.
Her husband is an occasionally employed doofus who enjoys drinking and driving. Her son is a drug dealer. Her daughter is a slut. The entire family should be euthanized as part of an improve America campaign. It would be merciful to say the least, these imbeciles have already started breeding!
Good conservative morals and ethics there, all that weekly church attendance really paid off!
There is little doubt in any thinking persons mind that the media hadn’t been hovering about when little Bristol found herself knocked up, baby Palin would have been quietly aborted. It’s rumored to have happened before, after all.
Good thing old Sarah had all the contraceptives taken away from those horrible teenagers and had them read abstinence literature!
Then of course we have her firing of a librarian who resisted ole Caribou Barbies attempts to ban books ....
Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. “They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,” Ms. Kilkenny said.
“The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to “resist all efforts at censorship,” Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us/politics/03wasilla.html?_r=1
Who needs that pesky free speech, after all! Sarah doesn’t read, why should anyone else!
Adjective man writes: “Hate is a destructive and negative emotion, we on the left have no time for such nonsense.” Then he goes on a typical hate rant. How pathetic is that?
The more that comes out about Sarah Palin, the more I’m liking her, and today’s revelation will compel me to view this courageous woman in a very serious light as I read from today’s Lew Rockwell site. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/043135.html
She is being lambasted by neocon, Thomas Franks, in a Wall Street Journal article for having the ‘audacity’ of being critical of FDR’s failed New Deal policies in her new book.
In it, she says, “[W]e tried growing government to save the economy back in the 1930s, and it didn’t work then either” and
“Massive government spending programs and protectionist economic policies actually helped turn a recession into the Great Depression.”
Palin has outdone, even Reagan in this instance, as he was, unfortunately, a defender of FDR’s New Deal policies along with the Trotsky-influenced neocons and establishment RINO’s that permeated his administration. This partially explained why government continued to grow under Reagan, despite his quasi-libertarian rhetoric.
It becomes more clear, as time goes on, the cause of friction between Palin and the McCain camp during last year’s elections along with the outright hostility from elements of the Left. Remember the “Sarah Palin Is A C**T” tee-shirts?
Sarah Palin is showing herself to be a person who puts PRINCIPLE before PARTY and I can conceivably find myself, as a paleo-libertarian, supporting her if she stays this course, should she decide to run in 2012.
OldNavy Shopper,
You see, you wing dings on the right are so consumed with hate (much of it directed inward) that you find it everywhere.
You COULD dispute anything I’ve claimed with verifiable references, but you won’t. Because my comments are all accurate.
The truth isn’t hate, but you conservatives sure hate the truth.
It’s obvious your military experience was spent in the rear with the gear.
Adjective person (man is no longer appropriate):
You are pathetic and each time you post you prove the point.
I am very tired of your stuff so I am now assigning you to ignore as I hope all others will do.
To Cynical; Remember 1 thing, Sarah P.‘s nomination came out of the blue to HER as well as the rest of us. She did not go after it. It came to her. She was NOT running for POTUS, just #2.so you think that Joe"Open mouth,insert foot,close mouth” is any better?? One of the top 5 libs. in the congress,& ready to retire back to itty-bitty
Delaware,on a pension that YOU pay for,,my taxes are so low that you are gettin’ it. BOHICA. He is no bargain. What the left STILL can’t fathom is that with John McC’s team in charge if he were
POTUS, Sarah would be relagated to the VP’s job.
Preside over the Senate, unless she is sent to rep
the USA at events the POTUS does not need to be.
You are SOOOOO worried the if JMcC DIED if office,
Sarah P. would be POTUS. So in stead if a Moderate
& a Conservative,,we have a MARXIST & an IDIOT.
Hope your happy ‘cause BOHICA…
Old Navy Vet—you are right about cynical—
Just his user name alone says it all—
Just a few discriptions of associations with the word—
CYNICAL—Implies having a sneering disbelief in sincerity or integrity
CAPTIOUS—marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections
AND—calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument
PEEVISH—marked by ill temper
Can’t imagine why anyone would want to go thru life with that kind of attitude—basically a very unhappy and hatefilled individual—
You notice, like many hateful, pathetic liberals, they always argue using foul mouth language and words—thinking it makes them look good and smart—well—let him/her continue to be delusional—
And I agree—the best way to make them go away—it not to respond to them—
November 18 at 4:54 pm | #1 | Link
I would love to see a LIVE 15 minute interview between Charlie ‘look down you professorial nose’ Gibson and Sarah Palin about her new book. No tape, no editing, just Charlie tuna and Sarah barracuda.