12 Sep

WHY Did ABC Manipulate Palin Interview Footage?

                                       

UPDATED
Kirsten Powers (D) has a great piece at the New York Post. In it, she says ABC bungled their interview with Governor Sarah Palin, and she does a fantastic job of pointing out some of Charlie Gibson’s lies, distortions, falsehoods, etc. However, she does fall short of the mark (perhaps because of space retraints?), and Ms. Powers stops just short of hitting the mark; of asking the really important question.

WHY did ABC do it? This wasn’t just editing, it was manipulation. Why’d ABC do it? Why’d the Washington Post do it as well?

reference:
Governor Sarah Palin’s actual speech to her son and others heading off to Iraq…

UPDATE
The full Palin/Gibson interview w underlined parts showing what was cut out/manipulated
ht Mark Levin show

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin (September 11, 2008)
THE BOLDED & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW

This entry was posted in 9/11, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Fanatical Islam, Iraq/Al-Qaeda Connection, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Politics, Sarah Palin, The Iraqi War, Videos, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 7:37 am
| 149 views

22 Responses to WHY Did ABC Manipulate Palin Interview Footage?

  1. Aye Chihuahua says: 1

    The job that ABC did editing Sarah Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson was horrible.

    Perhaps that was by design. I’m sure it wasn’t an accident.

    They cut her off in mid sentence and even in mid word. It was obvious to me that they were trying to tweak the message and create a certain impression.

    In the original excerpts released, Charlie Gibson used a quote from Palin and said those were her “exact words.” Palin objected in the interview saying she didn’t think so.

    ABC then edited that portion of the interview out after a backlash from readers/viewers and McCain campaign.

    No correction issued, just let it fall to the cutting room floor.

    The teaser headlines that ABC released to tout the interview were outright lies. The comments on their web page prove that the viewers saw what they were doing.

    To the dunderheads who gobble up whatever is tossed at them, they won’t know the difference. They’ll just nod along like bobbleheads

    ReplyReply
  2. Missy says: 2

    Kirsten Powers has been pretty fair lately, one thing I would quibble with her in the above mentioned article is that the rape kit issue is another myth developed by her opposition in Alaska and the Obama team:

    http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/11/the_palin_rape_kit_myth

    ReplyReply
  3. Scrapiron says: 3

    The Lame Stream Media has became a group of pre-school children in action. Little Johnny got a new toy so I demand one also. The Post tells a lie,, the NYSlimes is required to tell a bigger lie. I understand that Gibson’s lie about Palin’s prayer was actually based on a lie by the Associated (with terrorists) Press. Telling a lie about someone’s prayer. What a shock. She should come out with two barrels blazing today and burn the suckers good.

    ReplyReply
  4. Rovin says: 4

    Hubris, thy name is any media journalist. Alessandra Stanley, (in an article published in the International Harold Tribune*), sets the perfect example of hubris in an industry so arrogant that they truly believe the sun rises and sets at their beckoning call. It is scary to think that the media believes that with a few strokes of the keyboard, they can shape the worlds view into their petty bubble of a perceived agenda. The elite media actually believe they are all “Woodwards and Bernsteins”—-their anointed “Prophets of Journalism”—-writing and broadcasting like they were parting the Red Sea or etching the Commandments in stone.

    Example:

    “Gibson, who sat back in his chair and wriggled his foot impatiently, had the skeptical, annoyed tone of a university president who agrees to interview the daughter of a trustee, but doesn’t believe she merits admission.”

    Here, Mz. Stanley frames Charlie Gibson as the scholarly professor whose journalistic skills and wisdom rises above the PTA mom that conquered Alaska while the rest of the world waits for its turn.

    Governor Sarah Palin would be well advised to use caution when doing these interviews with our esteemed media that will pick apart and parse any portion of her statements to fit their misanthropic solipsism. The ethics and integrity of the profession has slithered into the gutter of liberal socialism, and by the “Prophets”, they will shape the world into their own image—–one conservative hockey mom at a time.

    *LINK

    ReplyReply
  5. steveegg says: 5

    Simple; they’re presstitutes on a mission, and that mission is to destroy Sarah Palin.

    ReplyReply
  6. kathie says: 6

    ……because they can. With an audience they can do anything the want.

    ReplyReply
  7. Pingback: Palin Derangement Syndrome - ‘Talk Left’ Stands Up For Sarah : BigMouthFrog

  8. kathie says: 7

    ….because they can. With an audience they can do anything they want.

    ReplyReply
  9. MataHarley says: 8

    What a laugh. In the WaPo link, a desperate Anne Kornbutt.. er Kornblut… goes the tired route of 911/Saddam accusations. Typical one trick monkey that thinks if a jihad movement isn’t wearing an AQ badge, and carrying the membership card, they just can’t be the enemy that “planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.”

    Intercooperation between jihad groups on major offenses has been the norm since the 90s. For those that did not directly and/or indirectly aid in 911, they most certainly rejoiced… and still do every Sept 11th.

    To use Kornbutt’s anal analysis, we never should have removed the Taliban as the rule of Afghanistan. After all, they didn’t attack us on Sept 11th either…

    Duh…. where do they get this journalistic “talent” nowadays?? The decline of humanity is manifested in the dumbing down of America. Feh…

    ReplyReply
  10. And that gotcha question about the “Bush doctrine” was something wasn’t it?

    If you had asked Charlie Gibson his opinion of the “Bush doctrine” last week he wouldn’t have known what you were talking about.

    When was the last time they asked Obama a question like that?

    ReplyReply
  11. Scott Malensek says: 10

    Interestingly enough, Charlie Gibson DID ask Obama an almost identical question in the Democratic debates, but Obama dodged it, and instead he said he’d take pre-emptive action in Pakistan. Later, in a different interview, he admitted that his Pakistan policy is the same as the Bush policy.

    Obama supporters often have this idea that if they vote for Obama the war in Iraq will magically end, and even though the pre-emptive attack doctrine will remain unchanged (a doctrine that’s been a part of American policy since that first shot heard ’round the world started the American Revolution).

    ABC NH Debate….

    GIBSON: Well, Osama bin Laden, as he pointed out, has said it is his duty to try to get nuclear weapons. Al Qaida has been reconstituted and re-energized in the western part of Pakistan. And so my general question is, how aggressively would you go after Al Qaida leadership there? And let me start with you, Senator Obama, because it was you who said in your foreign policy speech that you would go into western Pakistan if you had actionable intelligence to go after it, whether or not the Pakistani government agreed. Do you stand by that?

    OBAMA: I absolutely do stand by it, Charlie. What I said was that we should do everything in our power to push and cooperate with the Pakistani government in taking on Al Qaida, which is now based in northwest Pakistan. And what we know from our national intelligence estimates is that Al Qaida is stronger now than at any time since 2001. And so, back in August, I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan so you’ve got a legitimate government that we’re working with, and secondly that we have to press them to do more to take on Al Qaida in their territory.

    What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike.

    And I should add that Lee Hamilton and Tom Keaton, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, a few months later wrote an editorial saying the exact same thing.

    I think it’s indisputable that that should be our course.

    Let me just add one thing, though. On the broader issue of nuclear proliferation, this is something that I’ve worked on since I’ve been in the Senate. I worked with Richard Lugar, then the Republican head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to pass the next stage of what was Nunn-Lugar so that we would have improved interdiction of potentially nuclear materials.

    OBAMA: And it is important for us to rebuild a nuclear nonproliferation strategy, something that this administration, frankly, has ignored, and has made us less safe as a consequence.

    It would not cost us that much, for example, and would take about four years for us to lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are still floating out there, and we have not done the job.

    GIBSON: I’m going to go the others in a moment, but what you just outlined is essentially the Bush doctrine. We can attack if we want to, no matter the sovereignty of the Pakistanis.

    OBAMA: No, that is not the same thing, because here we have a situation where Al Qaida, a sworn enemy of the United States, that killed 3,000 Americans and is currently plotting to do the same, is in the territory of Pakistan. We know that.

    And this is not speculation. This is not a situation where we anticipate a possible threat in the future.

    And my job as commander in chief will be to make sure that we strike anybody who would do America harm when we have actionable intelligence do to that

    ReplyReply
  12. Fit fit says: 11

    That’s not a gotcha question. Asking about the Monroe Doctrine would have been a gotcha question.

    The only point that can be made on her answer is that the Bush doctrine is not always defined the same way. It’s either refering to the idea that anyone aiding terrorists should be considered an enemy or the idea of the use of force in a preemptive manner (or both).

    The problem was she appeared to be unfamilar with the phrase. It reinforces doubts many have about her basic knowledge on America’s foreign policy issues.

    ReplyReply
  13. Rovin says: 12

    When was the last time they asked Obama a question like that?

    Mike,

    When can some one say has Obama even been vetted? How would Obama have done if the same interview had Obama in the chair? More “hopey-changy” just doesn’t cut it.

    And the Bush Doctrine is the very reason we have not been attacked in seven years. Charlie and the liberal media would have us believe this is a mistake. History will prove them wrong.

    ReplyReply
  14. wordsmith says: 13

    Excellent analysis by Joshua S. Treviño, Mike:

    GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?

    PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?

    GIBSON: The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?

    PALIN: His world view.

    GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.

    PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that’s the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.

    GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?

    The consequence of this exchange has been the predictable and familiar litany of hand-wringing over Palin’s purported ignorance of basic foreign policy principles, and her concurrent fitness (or lack thereof) to lead the country. See Andrew Sullivan for a succinct demonstration of the shrieking; the rest may be found via the usual suspects.

    Sullivan writes: “[A]ny serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy knows what the Bush doctrine is.” Charlie Gibson apparently agrees. They’re both wrong. The fact is that the “Bush Doctrine” is a term which has had an evolving definition over this decade. Though it’s obvious Palin was momentarily baffled by the query, she was far closer to the truth when she interpreted the phrase as signifying the President’s “world view.” What we know as the “Bush Doctrine” has many meanings. A brief survey reveals the following:

    In March 2002, the New York Times’s Frank Rich described the “Bush Doctrine” as the proposition, enunciated by the President, that “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

    In March 2002, UK Guardian’s Tony Dodge declared that the “Bush Doctrine” was a set of American-imposed principles for the conduct of small states, “concern[ing] the suppression of all terrorist activity on their territory, the transparency of banking and trade arrangements, and the disavowal of weapons of mass destruction.”

    In January 2003, Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute defined the “Bush Doctrine” as a principle of American global hegemony, with “anticipatory self-defense” as one of its enforcement mechanisms.

    In February 2003, PBS’s Frontline’s “The War Behind Closed Doors” described the “Bush Doctrine” as the whole set of premises undergirding the 2002 National Security Strategy — of which “anticipatory self-defense” is merely one facet. In March 2003

    , Slate’s Michael Kinsley put a unique spin on the “Bush Doctrine,” by asserting it signified the President’s claimed right to go to war without permission from international or domestic institutions.

    In June 2004, the Washington Post’s Robin Wright wrote that the “Bush Doctrine” was comprised of “four broad principles,” of which “anticipatory self-defense” was only one.

    In March 2005, Charles Krauthammer, in Time, described the “Bush Doctrine” as encompassing the policy of democracy-promotion in the Middle East.

    In December 2006, Philips H. Gordon of the Brookings Institution defined the “Bush Doctrine” as encompassing a set of four basic assumptions, of which “anticipatory self-defense” was half of one.

    In June 2007, Ali Abunimah of the Electronic Intifada referred to the “Bush Doctrine” as the principle of democratization in the Middle East.

    In July 2007, Senator Barack Obama described the “Bush Doctrine” as, as reported by ABC News, “only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States.”

    In January 2008 and in May 2008, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe described the “Bush Doctrine” as the President’s warning to “the sponsors of violent jihad: ‘You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists.’”

    Two things to note: first, that “any serious person who has followed the debates about US foreign policy” should know that describing the “Bush Doctrine” as the President’s “world view” is actually rather apt; second, that even the Democratic nominee for president botches the definition by the Gibson standard. Logically, those denouncing Palin for unfitness to be vice president now, on these grounds, ought to be doubly concerned that Barack Obama is unfit to be president. This won’t happen, of course, because this entire affair is a passing tactical “gotcha” rather than a serious critique.

    There’s a lot more where this came from — see Richard Starr’s epic catalogue of ABC’s own variations on the term’s definition — but this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Charlie Gibson and Palin’s critics got it wrong. Sarah Palin got it right

    ReplyReply
  15. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Kurtz: “Gibson Used Palin’s Own Words Against Her”…

  16. Yo says: 14

    ABC did a terrible job with this interview. The editing was absolutely horrendous. I called my ABC affiliate here in Seattle because the video of Sarah was ahead of her voice and it looked like I was watching a spaghetti western in a foreign language. Having the answers clipped off in mid-sentence made it even worse. I really thought there was something wrong with my cable TV because when I called the TV station they said I was the first one that had complained and it wasn’t them.

    After I saw the whole thing, I replayed it and it was just Sarah’s voice that was off track. When CG spoke, his mouth matched the audio. At that point it really made me angry because I felt like ABC had done it on purpose so her answers would look clipped, stilted, and halting. I felt very badly for Sarah and was wondering WHY she would agree to an interview with ABC. They have been just as badly in the tank for Obama as MSNBC, CNN, and NBC. I won’t even watch the prime time channels of ABC, CBS, or NBC anymore because of their extreme bias.

    CG came across as a condescending a**wipe. I am willing to bet you at least 90% of Americans would not know what the Bush doctrine is because it has different meanings and I am even willing to bet if you had asked BHO, he wouldn’t have known what it meant either.

    ReplyReply
  17. MataHarley says: 15

    Funny that you mention that, Yo. We were discussing just what is meant by any particular pundit when you say the words, “Bush Doctrine” on another thread I confess… I don’t know. I know what many insinuate it to mean. But since it’s a media creation, and not a doctrine or policy that was created and named by the administration, it’s mostly a free-fer-all that suits the speaker’s particular needs.

    It would be much better if Gibson had just articulated the question with clarity instead of depending on vague media catch phrases.

    In the thread mentioned above, Curt came in with the Wiki version (to appease tho die hard Wiki fans, I guess…. LOL), but also with Krauthammer’s article on the Palin/Gibson/Bush Doctrine hubbub. It’s worthy of a read.

    Tried watching it in it’s entirety last night, but actually fell asleep. I was already turned off by the introduction of smears. Then, I agree with all that it’s offensive when editing doesn’t allow the subject to dang well finish the sentence… of which it was obviously chopped in most instances.

    And would they do that with long winded Obama and Biden? Nope… they’d just put in less questions in the hour and let them finish…

    ReplyReply
  18. yonason says: 16

    CHARLIE GIBSON IS THE NEW DAN RATHER

    if only this would get Gibons to follow him.

    ReplyReply
  19. jr says: 17

    …in regard to “What if they asked obama those questions?”

    They will never ask obama those questions, because at this point in time we all know that those types of questions are above his pay grade.

    ReplyReply
  20. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Saturday Night Live Believes ABC’s Manipulated Interview W Palin

  21. Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>