As the V.P. debate approaches, the right-wing blogosphere has discovered a secret plot to make Sarah Palin look bad, as if anyone needed to spend even thirty seconds making such an effort. The name of this nefarious plot? Gwen Ifill.
Yes, that’s right, my friends, Gwen Ifill. Rightwing blog after rightwing blog has shrilly announced that Ifill is “in the can” for Obama. Why? Because she is writing a pro-Obama book. Do you want to know the title of this literary monument to Obamalove, this undeniable evidence of disgusting bone-deep liberal media bias? Wait for it: Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Commentators who cite this book as evidence of bias have of course not read the book. No one has, because it’s slated to be released in January of 2009. The McCain campaign also apparently didn’t know it was forthcoming, though its publication was no secret. (They’ve got the best research team around, as the Palin pick so clearly demonstrates.)
Apparently, according to such intellectual luminaries as NRO’s Jim Geraghty, to even write a book that has the name “Barack Obama” in its title or subtitle necessarily implies that the author of said book is so hideously and irrevocably biased in favor of the aforementioned breakthrough politician that all her professional journalistic standards will instantly go out the window when she is tapped to moderate a debate; the forthcoming publication of a book with this title is evidence of the media’s “jaw-dropping double standard” when it comes to the candidates. It’s clearly a double standard because, well, there’s absolutely nothing historic about Obama’s candidacy, nothing at all worth writing about, no unbiased journalistic angle to be found on Obama and the new generation of post-Jackson black political leadership in this country.
Writing such a book implies, according to wise folk like Jim Treacher, that Ifill will ask the following types of questions of Palin and Biden during the V.P. debate:
Mayor Palin, Barack Obama is a handsome, charismatic demigod. How many boxes of Kleenex will you need after your crushing loss?
Senator Biden, what is your favorite color? And if you have time for a follow-up question: Why?
Mayor, you talk funny and you own a tanning bed. Why haven’t you released Trig’s birth certificate?
Senator, have you seen those pictures of Obama in his swim trunks? If not, I have them right here.
How droll! How insightful! What a terrific bit of satire–or should we call it prognostication?–you’ve composed, Mr. Treacher!
By this airtight logic, of course, the titles of Jerome R. Corsi’s Obama Nation and David Freddoso’s The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media’s Favorite Candidate evince these authors’ profound and abiding love of Obama, because, you see, Obama’s name is in the title of the books they wrote. Corsi and Freddoso are “in the can” for Obama, and would therefore be hopelessly biased anti-McCain moderators for a nationally televised debate between Biden and Palin.
The only jaw-dropping double standard here seems to be that anyone in the national media is paying any attention to this story at all.
A rabbi walked off the ferry and into a mudpool. A man helped him clean off. Later that day the rabbi was called on to judge a case in which the man was involved; the rabbi recused himself!
A rabbi was used to getting his fruit delivered to his house; when the fruit bringer came before him in a court case, the Rabbi recused himself!
Whether or not Gwen Ifill is capable of impartiality is not the point! What is the point is that Ifill should recuse herself because of the perception of impropriety. Here she is not a journalist asking questions; here she has the power to be biased with no appeal available to the wronged party!
Just consider for a moment what would happen if she insisted, or didn’t insist, on an answer FROM JOE BIDEN which he was incapable of giving; she would immediatly be accused of over-compensating for her bias. So much the worse is her relationship tonight with Sarah Palin!
Again, like it or not, the perception of impropriety, no matter how small, no matter how petty, should be grounds for recusal.
And since Ifill herself does not believe that she is a woman without honour, no matter how brilliant a journalist she is!
Comment by elixelx — October 2, 2008 @ 4:31 am
Dear Lee:
Way to go! You really gave it to that “right-wing blogosphere”. Great use of “nefarious” by the way. I have a couple more words for you that pertain to your premise: “specious” and, uh, “stupid”.
Let’s do a word problem, shall we? Let’s call X the number of books that Ifill will sell if Obama wins and Y the number if McCain wins. Do you think that X is equal to, greater than or less than Y? I submit to you that if X is not equal to Y (doesn’t matter if it’s greater than or less than), there is a conflict of interest. Can you refute this?
But the right-wing blogosphere has been even more nefarious than you know…
Read more of this phanmail here:
http://phanmail.blogspot.com/2008/10/dear-lee.html
Comment by abigphan — October 2, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Wow, the blog post I shot off last night has had an amazing effect on the readership level of the blog. We’ve gone from about 50 unique hits to about 600 today.
To new readers: Welcome!
To address the comments thus far:
I agree that the main problem, if there is a problem, is the PERCEPTION of the possibility of bias. But I mean, have you ever seen Ifill? She’s about as boringly professional as they come.
More to the point, both candidates knew that the book was forthcoming — or should have — and agreed to the debate. My guess is that the debate will be as boring as they come but a certain part of the blogosphere will parse every frown and smile and tic of Ifill’s looking for bias as they might the future in tea leaves. I’m just not convinced.
abigphan:
You write, “Let’s call X the number of books that Ifill will sell if Obama wins and Y the number if McCain wins. Do you think that X is equal to, greater than or less than Y? I submit to you that if X is not equal to Y (doesn’t matter if it’s greater than or less than), there is a conflict of interest. Can you refute this?”
I think X is greater than Y, absolutely. Refute it? I would only need to refute it if it was evidence of a hideous “double-standard” and evil liberal bias. Let’s conduct a thought experiment, changing a few names:
“Let’s call X the number of books that Corsi will sell if Obama wins and Y the number if McCain wins. Do you think that X is equal to, greater than or less than Y? I submit to you that if X is not equal to Y (doesn’t matter if it’s greater than or less than), there is a conflict of interest.”
Can you refute this? Since you can’t, as I couldn’t with your thought experiment, you must also conclude that Corsi would be “in the can” for Obama in a televised debate between the V.P. candidates. Right?
Anyway, again, to elixelx and abigphan and everyone else reading for the first time — welcome to the blog! We’re excited to have you as part of the blog community, posting comments. We’re in a phase of expansion, so we need every set of eyeballs we can get!
Comment by Lee — October 2, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Lee,
We agree on one thing: Corsi should not moderate the debate.
I’m not suggesting that there is a hideous double standard. I’m only suggesting that Ifill has a conflict of interest. Corsi would as well. Although, he might feel, well, conflicted in his conflict of interest: his heart vs. his pocketbook so to speak. Would Ifill feel similarly conflicted? I don’t know but I have my suspicions.
Cheers,
A Big Phan
Comment by abigphan — October 2, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
A Big Phan,
I don’t know if we agree… to keep going with thought experiments — if Corsi were a well-reputed journalist with decades of experience who just happened to be writing a book called “Mavericks: Politics and Age in the Age of McCain” but who both campaigns agreed to let moderate the VP debate….
Well, as someone who prefers Obama, I might be mad at the Obama campaign for not doing its homework–What a failure of basic competence!, I would think–but I would probably not worry too much about the debate itself.
I also think attacks on Ifill have been unfair on another dimension. It seems entirely fair for a journalist to write about politicians. It is also fair, in my view, for journalists to have political opinions, (though the discussion here seems to be hinging entirely on Ifill’s possible financial motivations). Journalists are not robots. The best thing one can do is be upfront about what one is working on–Ifill was entirely non-deceptive, as far as I can tell–and let the candidates decide for themselves what they’re comfortable with.
If the McCain campaign said, “You know, we screwed up–we didn’t do our homework–so we’re pulling out of the VP debate,” it would be well within its rights.
We’ll have an opportunity to see for ourselves how Ifill does tonight. My prediction: we’ll witness nothing too interesting or biased, unless Palin pulls another Couric interview debacle, which I suspect she won’t.
–Lee
Comment by Lee — October 2, 2008 @ 1:56 pm
On the one hand, the book is irrelevant since Ifill is African-American and a journalist which puts the probability at, roughly, ninety-seven and a half per cent that she is in the tank for Obama anyway.
On the other hand, if a book hits the NYT bestseller list, I have it on good authority that it is worth a minimun of $350,000 to the author. If Obama loses, the odds of making the NYT list would seem to drop some, wouldn’t they?
Then there is the fact that Ifill didn’t bother to disclose the prospect of the book to the Debate Commission. I wonder why? Maybe she worried that the Commission would have taken the prudent step and replaced her, thereby denying her the big paycheck (I assume here) for moderating the debate. And that brings us back to whether the 350 grand for the book might also influence her, doesn’t it?
Comment by elHombre — October 2, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
One great thing about this whole Ifil controversy is it’s offered up yet another window into the mind of John McCain.
A few days ago, McCain said this to Fox News: “I think that Gwen Ifill is a professional, and I think that she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional. Does this help that if she has written a book that is favorable to Senator Obama? Probably not, but I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job. And I have that confidence.”
Then, today, he said this: “Frankly, I wish they had picked a moderator that isn’t writing a book favorable to Barack Obama — let’s face it,” McCain said on “Fox & Friends. “But I have to have confidence that Gwen Ifill will handle this as the professional journalist that she is.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14207.html
elHombre clearly believes it would be unfair to have an African moderator of any debate — comments like his may explain why the vast majority of African Americans are supporting Obama (of course, many of them are also supporting him because they rightly don’t trust McCain to handle our economy, our foreign policy, etc.)
When McCain says he has confidence that Ifil will do a professional job because she is a highly respected professional, does that mean anything to those of you who seem to believe Ifil will do a biased job?
Or have you already decided that nothing McCain says can be taken seriously? If so, join the club.
Comment by Ian — October 2, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
El Hombre,
You write: “On the one hand, the book is irrelevant since Ifill is African-American and a journalist which puts the probability at, roughly, ninety-seven and a half per cent that she is in the tank for Obama anyway.”
This is really a pretty remarkable claim, first because it is based on no evidence–you pull your number out of the air–but also because of what it implies about human nature: no one can be objective when moderating a debate with the surrogate of a candidate of your own race. By your logic, all white moderators are by definition in the can for McCain.
You write: “On the other hand, if a book hits the NYT bestseller list, I have it on good authority that it is worth a minimun of $350,000 to the author. If Obama loses, the odds of making the NYT list would seem to drop some, wouldn’t they?”
Again, you ask us to trust your “good” (unnamed) authority. Maybe you’re right, but you haven’t offered an argument in support of your claim, just an assertion without any backing. You also, for a second time, invent a number out of whole cloth. I don’t accept arguments made by authority. If you think you’re right, and you think political conversation is a useful way to spend your time, persuade those who might disagree with you.
You write: “Then there is the fact that Ifill didn’t bother to disclose the prospect of the book to the Debate Commission. I wonder why? Maybe she worried that the Commission would have taken the prudent step and replaced her, thereby denying her the big paycheck (I assume here) for moderating the debate. And that brings us back to whether the 350 grand for the book might also influence her, doesn’t it?”
Ifill’s book was not some sort of secret plot, nor is its existence evidence of bias, though the best case against her is that she has her financial interest in Obama’s election will short circuit her professionalism.
I accept that under certain legal circumstances, especially in cases of public service, preventing even an *apparent* conflict of interests is prudent. But in this situation, where the debate is going to be subject to huge amounts of public scrutiny, I just don’t see any evil or nefarious or even unethical intent here.
Nothing you’ve written here really amounts to an argument with supporting evidence; it’s all insinuation and innuendo and made-up numbers all the way down.
We’ll all see the debate on TV tonight, and those of us with a predisposition to reading Ifill’s blinks and body language and tilts of the head a certain way will inevitably come to our predetermined conclusions.
Comment by Lee — October 2, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
Ian: I think that that McCain’s often erratic comments and, excuse the term, flip-flops are indicative of what McCain wants to vs. what the Steve Schmidt of the world. That said, it’s his responsibility to say what he thinks, his words are on his head alone.
ElHombre: I’m sure Gwen Ifill or any of the debate moderators are doing this gratis or at most the equivalent of scale. While she may benefit financially from Obama victory-driven booksales she may just as much from an Obama lost when people seek a reason as to why.
Lee: I think the original post and some of the comment speak to the collective brilliance of the right-wing blogsphere. One way, Ifill overcompensates to accommodate them, the other way any Palin flub can be blamed on the moderator.
Comment by John — October 2, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Oh why don’t you guys grow up and give it a rest! I’m clear that there was a 100% chance of one or more PC pumpers playing the ‘racist’ game here.
The 97.5% was obviously hyperbole. The 100%, above, was not.
What country are you living in? Every day we have to listen to the libsymps in the media speak about Obama’s potential loss based on polls leading to speculation about white racism. Never mind that the polls do not reference Obama personally, we’re just going to assume that he may be victimized. I doubt there is much question that Lee and Ian are tut-tutting about that!
On the other hand, if exit polls show 90+% of African-American voters are going for Obama and if conservative black pastors, who acknowledge he is anathema to everything they stand for, announce that they are going to vote for him anyway, etc., etc., then it may not be racist to notice that black racism is afoot.
Oh yes. And there is the matter of the book: “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.” Race is not on her mind, right?
Oh yes again. There was the sugary piece in Essence Magazine, not Newsweek, mind you, Essence, written by Ifill about Obama and family.
Despite my generalization and hyperbole in the first comment, I am talking about THIS moderator and THIS candidate in THIS election and you know it.
And Lee, kindly reread your own posts and then reflect on whether anyone in their right mind, which I assure you I am, would think they might persuade you of a contrary position. You have simply accepted one side of the story. E.g., “Ifill was entirely non-deceptive, as far as I can tell.” I see it another way. You think she, and therefore the debate, will be unaffected by bias. I disagree, although I suspect now that the conflict of interest has been exposed it is more likely the debate will be fair.
Either way, you have no reason to patronize me and it is unlikely that you are qualified to do so. Or is it because of my perceived race? LOL
Finally, if Ifill were a lawyer undertaking the representation of a client, here the Debate Commission, and she had a potential financial interest in the matter, direct or indirect, she would be required to disqualifiy herself or, at the very least, notify the client of the potential conflict.
Neither the stakes, nor the interest in propriety called for any less scrupulousness here.
Comment by elHombre — October 2, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Well it looks like the didn’t change the moderator so we’ll all digest what we see on the next post.
Comment by John — October 2, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
Even though this is a minor point to make, I thought I’d just chime in since so many people seem to be concerned about any potential financial gain for Ifill.
If money were Ifill’s primary concern in life, do you think she’d work for PBS? I wonder how much she makes compared to, say, Anderson Cooper?
Comment by Julie — October 2, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
El Hombre,
I made no reference to racism in general in my post or my previous comments. I have been talking about nothing else other than “THIS moderator and THIS candidate in THIS election,” as you put it.
My claim is that Ifill is likely to do a reasonable and professional job as a moderator. Even assuming she prefers Obama, I have seen no persuasive evidence that she will do a bad job moderating, either before or after this manufactured scandal. The title of her book or the fact of its existence is unconvincing to me for the reasons I outlined above.
If you have anything to contribute other than hyperbole and broad generalizations about racism which would require their own postings and what seem to me unsubstantiated assertions, I’m open to hearing them. It’s not condescending to ask for such things. It’s what debate is all about.
Comment by Lee — October 2, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
To elHombre: We won’t be “giving it a rest” anytime soon. Just FYI. As for “growing up,” I honestly don’t know what you mean by that. Could you explain?
As for the “speculation” among “libsymps,” do you think it’s wrong or unexpected that some people in the media might speculate about how racism might be a factor in the first presidential general election campaign in our history that isn’t all-white? I believe most of the people who claim to think Obama is Muslim are using that as an excuse to hide their racism. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Speculation is allowed in this country — and obvious speculation should be expected.
As for the “tut-tutting,” I once again do not understand you. Lee and I are “tut-tutting” about what? What is “tut-tutting”? Is that like complaining?
There’s no question that the overwhelming majority of blacks are supporting Obama. The idea that this fact, in and of itself, somehow disqualifies Gwen Ifil from moderating a presidential debate will be perceived by many as racist against black people. Is that fair? Why not?
The strongest point you make is that Ifil wasn’t entirely upfront about her upcoming book when she took the moderator’s job. Can you supply any evidence to support your claim? It’s not that I don’t trust you, but as Ronald Reagan said, “Trust, but verify.”
Writing about Obama is not, as you suggest, evidence of bias — even if it’s in Essence Magazine. Did Ifil write anything that was biased in the article? Did you read the article?
Either way, don’t tell us to “grow up” and then complain about being patronized. As for why Lee isn’t “qualified” to patronize you, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that.
The idea that Ifil is subject to the same restrictions as an attorney is silly. The whole debate will be televised, and the American people will be left to make their own judgments. It’s just a poor analogy.
And nobody here has made any assumptions about your race. It’s totally irrelevant.
Comment by Ian — October 2, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
For what it’s worth I think she did a horrible job that did neither candidate service. Jim Fallows and Andrew Sullivan seem to agree.
Comment by John — October 2, 2008 @ 11:39 pm