ABC's Gibson repeatedly prodded McCain to brand Obama "a flip-flopper"
SUMMARY: During an interview with Sen. John McCain aired on ABC's World News, Charles Gibson asked McCain whether he "see[s]" Sen. Barack Obama "shifting positions." Gibson also asked McCain, "You're not ready, yet, to call him a flip-flopper?" But at no during the interview World News aired did Gibson ask McCain about the multiple instances in which McCain has "flip-floppe[d]."
On the July 9 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson introduced a portion of an interview he had with Sen. John McCain by stating, "John McCain has been hammering away at [Sen. Barack] Obama for his position on Iran, and he's also criticizing Obama for changing position on a number of other issues. And I asked him about that when we spoke this morning." The following are the only questions Gibson asked of McCain, which aired during the newscast:
- "I'm curious. There's been a lot of speculation in the press about whether your opponent may be shifting positions, in some areas, moving to the center -- a little more right than he was in the primaries. Do you see him shifting positions?"
- "You're not ready, yet, to call him a flip-flopper?"
- "You think so?"
Gibson then concluded the interview with: "All right. Senator McCain, good to talk to you. Get all the best. ... Take care."
At no point during the portion of the interview World News aired did Gibson ask McCain about the multiple instances in which McCain has "flip-floppe[d]" on immigration reform, taxes, and the religious right, among numerous other issues.
From the July 9 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: Well, John McCain has been hammering away at Obama for his position on Iran, and he's also criticizing Obama for changing position on a number of other issues. And I asked him about that when we spoke this morning.
[begin video clip]
GIBSON: I'm curious. There's been a lot of speculation in the press about whether your opponent may be shifting positions, in some areas, moving to the center -- a little more right than he was in the primaries. Do you see him shifting positions?
McCAIN: It appears so, although I have not been paying real close attention. But I would say on the issue of Iraq, I'm glad he's going for the first time in 900 days. I'm glad that he is, for the first time, asking for a sit-down briefing with General Petraeus, and I'll be very interested in what his position on Iraq is when he returns.
GIBSON: You're not ready, yet, to call him a flip-flopper?
McCAIN: Oh, it's obvious that what I say doesn't affect American public opinion nearly as much as what he says does.
GIBSON: You think so?
McCAIN: Well, the -- I mean, the fact is that he has changed his positions on FISA, on public financing, on his agreement that he said he'd go anytime, anyplace, to sit down -- to have a town hall meeting with me. We were before the same organization yesterday. We could have just stood there together and answered their questions. I think LULAC would have gotten a lot more out of it. He said that he would do that. He said that he would take public financing for the general election, if I did as well, and said that he agreed to it. But those things will be judged by the America people, but I won't hesitate to point them out.
GIBSON: All right. Senator McCain, good to talk to you. Get all the best.
McCAIN: Thank you, Charlie.
GIBSON: Take care.
WZ
When did you begin to think that your opinion had any merit at all, or that you ever had an intelligent thought in your life?
Projecting again, eh POV?? :)
I notice that "Professor" POV has not posted anything today. I suspect that his parents came home and made him log off their PC.
He claims to be a college professor, but based on the tone of the posts he makes here, I think he's a 24-year-old Trekkie who lives in his parents' basement......
WZ
Sorry I cant post all day everyday. Some of us do work. Hurry to the mailbox. I am sure your SS check and food stamps arrived today.
WZ
Sorry I cant post all day everyday. Some of us do work. Hurry to the mailbox. I am sure your SS check and food stamps arrived today.
POV - are you TRYING to sound like a pompous, elitist ass, or does it just come naturally for you? because you're not making many points for yourself here...
When did you begin to think that your opinion had any merit at all, or that you ever had an intelligent thought in your life?
I've known tat my opinions have merit all my life, and have been engaged in intelligent thought since the mid-'50s. When did YOU start pretending that you were a college professor?
WZ
I am sure the tech school you went to did wonders in furthering your education and higher order thinking. Have you finished dry cleaning my ties yet?
Have you finished dry cleaning my ties yet?
Actually, your dry cleaner called, POV. He's having trouble getting the drool stains out of your ties.
There was definitely some prodding going on in McCain's dressing room prior to the show. But I'm pretty sure it was just checking McCain's Depends to see if they needed changing.
Check Charlie's fingernails for baby powder. I think my suspicion will be confirmed, and explain the nursing he gave McCain on camera.
So the melding of Entertainment Tonight, Jerry Springer, and network news is not a cause for concern to you?
How'd you like to head the FCC for the remainder of the Bush administration? You're just the guy they're looking for...
Ooooh, looks like you were proven wrong by MMFA. Take a look at the top item from Thursday. When Obama was interviewed, he was asked about his own "flip flopping", but nothing about McCain's long record of actual flip flops.
Care to revise your opinion?
What a toothless interview indeed. Is this the way these candidates are going to be questioned throughout this campaign, being asked to comment on the other guy's positions or trying to affix some label to them? Pathetic. What about asking them about their positions, huh?
It's either gotcha youtube moments and dissecting every verbal gaffe endlessly, or lobbing softballs so they can ensure return visits and announce "exclusives" when they cozy up for more interviews down the road.
Deliver me from this.....
I'm with you Tommy.
Is it just because we're mired in this "reality tv" mentality that the media is provoking personal feuds? Or is it that they've become incompetent? Or have all previous campaign seasons been this inane, and I'm just getting too old to remember them?
When you do get delivered, do you suppose you could have the driver swing by my place to get me too?
I'll call when we leave.....
I think it's worse now than ever. We are in such a tabloid culture, attention deficit disorder mentality in everything nowadays - instant, non-stop communication at our fingertips, we want soundbites and we want to move on fast......so issues are trumped by verbal missteps and the media plays to our lowest common denominator. It is what it is, I watch it from afar anymore, all these cable punditfests, it's the same thing on every channel night after night, and I come away only knowing what every one of them think about Obama's children being on Access Hollywood......yippee!
"Do you have any specific method of delivering yourself from this, or are you just spinning pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals?..."
That felt cleansing...
Maybe you get now what I had gone off about on a much earlier thread--is it really too much to ask an alleged "journalist" to actually do his/her job?...
Oh please, do tell. What is your solution? If it's some lofty "holding their feet to the fire", please detail how, it's measurable impact, enforcement, and results to date.
Thank you.
What a wimpy dodge, but typical of your lawlerly shiftiness.
Oh, and you can come here and complain about whatever you want too, if I intimidated you into thinking you couldn't, perhaps you'd better ask yourself why?
Aren't you "whining" about the "state of our media" here? There is no dodge. According to you such whining is useless, you need to tell us what you would specifically do to improve it. Or is there a special standard just for Clams in effect?
Obviously I'll complain about the state of the media no matter what you say, as will you.
Do you get some sense of victory when you go back through my posts and paste them on later threads? My god, how can you even remember or much less care? For the record, I wouldn't bother doing the same to yours, they are not that memorable - but I am flattered nonetheless.......you are creepy, I am sorry, that is downright weird - do you have like a file on me with my posts categorized or something? Do you do this to anyone else, or just me? Do you have some bizarre fantasy for me, because why else......? never mind, I don't wanna know......whew.
In any event, I guess those are my words to Clams, although I don't remember the context but no doubt you can find it at your fingertips, so go ahead if you must.
The difference is we all are frustrated at our media, me included, I have never said I wasn't or I wouldn't be on this site, now would I? Also, I have rarely "whined" about radio talk show host's opinions or get my panties wadded up by what they say like you and Clams do all the time. So that is probably where your "quote" of mine came from as he was probably bellyaching about that. This, on the other hand, is not the same thing....this is an interview with a presidential candidate by a major news network. Therein lies the distinction that escapes you.
And NO, you cannot have my picture to go along with your fat file of my posts......
you are creepy, I am sorry, that is downright weird
Wow, you've now directed this sentiment at 8 different posters. How odd.
Did you not notice that it was LWC who pointed out your hypocrisy above? I was just playing along with his observation. When I do point out hypocrisy, I do it for others as well. You just get more of the treatment because your standards and principles seem to change with the tides. Of course labeling it as "creepy" is just your way of downplaying your responsibility for your own words.
"Allowing Morris to spew idiocy and lies on national television on a regular basis should not be proudly held up as some shining example of free speech. Free speech doesn't mean that every dishonest slimeball gets to be on ABC for 15 minutes, and NOT inviting Morris on national television would in no way be considered censorship."
So explain how that is "whining" while what you said above isn't. Is complaining about Morris's dishonest tactics not valid or worthwhile, while complaining about Gibson's "toothless" interview is? Why? Isn't it clearly Gibson's underlying opinion that Obama is a "flip-flopper", hence the leading questions?
You'll also have to explain how an interview with a candidate is worth complaining about while a comment about a candidate isn't. They both affect public perception, they're both examples of irresponsible and unprofessional behavior.
"When I do point out hypocrisy, I do it for others as well"
Oh please, you are so full of yourself it's amazing. I used to consider you an intelligent and thoughtful poster Brab, but you have sunk into nothing more than a flake, who gets some titillating thrill in misfired attempts at showing up anonymous posters on a website. I could care less if you or anyone thinks I am being contradictory here or not.
Perhaps if you had your own points to make on the topic, without swooping in and making this tread about my past positions, you wouldn't appear so petty and desperate.
Get help. :)
I guess I'll remember that the next time you ask someone for clarification of what they say here that you're just trying to show up anonymous posters on a website. And of course an intelligent poster would just let you get away with all the double standards your little heart desires, supposedly.
Thanks for the excellent demonstrations of ad hominem attacks, though. Couldn't find anything I wrote to take out of context in order to smear me this time, or are you just lazy today?
That is a fine way to treat a poster who came to your defense.
; )
Tommy sez:
"... in the ole' cap."
Is that like...a sombrero?
(sorry, couldn't help myself)
Let me ask you, what does it matter to you? Why when you see a post of mine are you so compelled to not just comment or argue it on it's own merits, but instead you feel the need to see if something I once said in the past, either a statement of my own, or in response to someone else, contradicts what I am now saying?
If I am such a hypocritical flip-flopping mishmash of contradictions and flailing off the wall opinions, why waste your time?
I really want to know.
He thinks he's in a courtroom and is bringing in incriminating evidence to discredit a witness, he looks silly. Oh, and this is not a courtroom.
Thanks JLyons.
An excellent example of what I posted below. You lose credibility by making inflammatory comments and refusing to explain them, then coming up with "I was being sarcastic" later on. That behavior limits your credibility.
Thanks for bringing that up, that illustrated the point brilliantly.
Tommy's original post was absolutely correct. That's the point, when other people make legitimate and understandable criticisms, they're just whiners who should just shut up because they don't have a solution at hand, but Tommy can criticize people in the media without any such qualifier.
For anyone who has a problem with their own behavior being brought up to them, I have two words:"Personal responsibility".
Nothing, so what? Under this convenient construct where we can only discuss things relevant to the thread, how would anyone's history or credibility ever be evaluated?
Or do you not think that credibility matters here?
Or do you not think that credibility matters here?
Not when it is a clear attempt to disrupt the board. You seem to have a double standard, it is ok for certain posters but not others.
This has been explained to you any number of times. When you make arguments of convenience, when you say something just because you have some emotional impulse to do it, you lack credibility. That should be pointed out for anyone who does it.
It's like when Governor accused Jeter of being sexist, there was no basis for that. The charge couldn't be defended, so it establishes that any future criticism of Jeter by Governor doesn't necessarily mean anything in and of itself. Congoer (sp?) blasted Thomp.Steve a while ago in a manner I felt was unfair, and in the process expressed the sentiment that conservatives have no valid arguments, period. So the validity of his criticism of conservatives in general has to be viewed with that in mind.
Similarly, it should be established that your use of "whining" might not mean a damn thing in any given situation. You complain, others "whine", and there's no discernible difference between them. These things affect credibility, which is important in evaluating the worth of anyone's commentary here.
It's like when Governor accused Jeter of being sexist, there was no basis for that. The charge couldn't be defended, so it establishes that any future criticism of Jeter by Governor doesn't necessarily mean anything in and of itself.
I think the debate was w/ you. You maintained that a man can call a woman a bitch in a non-sexist way. To date, I totally disagree.
Jeter made the comment that you took issue with. I know you still maintain your position.
Look how you've managed to derail this entire thread into all sorts of unrecognizable areas. You could've avoided this entire array of idiocy by just saying you agree with what I originally said and been done with it. But instead you chose to jump on your personal vendetta bandwagon and drive it right through the heart of the thread for your own personal delicious "hypocrisy" policing satisfaction. I hope you feel warm and fuzzy and all proud of yourself as a result.
I feel sorry for you.
Again, it was LWC that made the observation. I just commented on it.
More ad hominem. Can't you comment on the merits of what I'm saying, instead of making personal attacks?
No, you answer my question from earlier regarding why you personally troll around this site with your ridiculous obsession to make ME the topic of every thread so you can get the attention you obviously desire by dragging us through 100 posts of off topic "Tommy is a hypocrite and here's why......" nonsense.
You have no interest in discussing the topic, what you crave is argument, pure and simple - maybe you flunked law school and wish you were litigating cases or something, so agreeing with me is not an option, you want debate where you have to manufacture it.....most people here won't argue with you because they're in agreement, so you reach in your bag of my old posts and lie in wait to find some new statement of mine that can jumpstart a way for you to get off arguing with me. It's sick Brab. Others are beginning to see it too, just don't expect me to fulfill your fantasies or play Perry Mason with when you're in the mood. Grow up.
And yes, more ad hominem attacks, sorry you get what you started. You don't impress or intimidate me, pity is more the word.
5:21:21 PM EDT
I hope you don't think you're getting time and a half for that.
"No, you answer my question from earlier regarding why you personally troll around this site with your ridiculous obsession to make ME the topic of every thread so you can get the attention you obviously desire by dragging us through 100 posts of off topic "Tommy is a hypocrite and here's why......" nonsense."
Obviously it's not nonsense, since you don't deny it. I answered your question. You get it more because you contradict yourself more often than anyone else.
"You have no interest in discussing the topic, what you crave is argument, pure and simple - maybe you flunked law school and wish you were litigating cases or something, so agreeing with me is not an option, you want debate where you have to manufacture it.....most people here won't argue with you because they're in agreement, so you reach in your bag of my old posts and lie in wait to find some new statement of mine that can jumpstart a way for you to get off arguing with me. It's sick Brab. Others are beginning to see it too, just don't expect me to fulfill your fantasies or play Perry Mason with when you're in the mood. Grow up."
"Manufacture"? You must be joking. You display brazen hypocrisy and it's "manufacturing" an argument to comment on it? I don't disagree with you in a knee-jerk manner, when you're reasonable and consistent I don't take any issue with what you say. You know this full well, but of course when you're feeling defensive then my entire character suddenly makes a major metamorphosis. Funny how that works.
"And yes, more ad hominem attacks, sorry you get what you started. You don't impress or intimidate me, pity is more the word."
Where did I make a personal attack on you? Moreover, for the third time, it wasn't me that made the observation in the first place, so how I "started" this is a mystery.
If you really don't care about being viewed as a hypocrite, why all the lashing out?
"Others are beginning to see it too..."
I forgot to tell you how hilarious this is too. Whenever more than one poster tells you something, they're just propping each other up, but I'm supposed to get some sort of wake-up call because "others" supposedly agree with you. Who? Jeter, Chris, JLyons, people that I've criticized as well as you, people who seem overly interested in maintaining an alliance with you no matter how often you're embarrassed here?
Yes, that's very compelling stuff.
Fine. You do what you do, I will do what I do.
And you enjoy the rest of your day as well.
Heaven help you man, there is indeed something wrong with you. Take a pill or something. tommy must have more patience to put up with your stalking.
Like he said, make your damn point about Gibson and let it go.
And one of the "others" pops his head up.
Can you address Tommy's hypocrisy? The point was made, whether you like it or not. I'm not particularly concerned with the opinion of someone who can't tell the difference between liberalism and socialism.
Then why did you jump into the conversation? That's rather odd, to waste time posting to me when you don't waste your time that way.
Do you think that credibility doesn't matter here?
Everyone who posts here is evaluated based on their history of behavior. By the logic presented by you and JLyons that can never be discussed, because the threads aren't about any poster and someone could always say it's an attempt to hijack the thread no matter how legitimate the demonstration of hypocrisy is. So how could this sort of thing ever be brought up?
Why would it be a good thing to have an atmosphere where nobody is held accountable for their behavior?
That didn't really answer the questions. It would be nice if everyone was honest enough so that it was never a concern, but what about when it is? Why create an atmosphere where people can be as hypocritical as they want without any repercussions whatsoever, making whatever argument suits their purposes no matter how unprincipled and inconsistent it may be?
It wouldn't be a good thing, obviously. This is why credibility is always relevant.
"...this is not about tommy, it is about Gibson.--JamesB
For me it's about motivation first. Tommy (he's not alone btw) dissembles. Brabantio is one of the few here (Clams Casino, Governor, Rabbitluver also come to mind) who has both the wit and energy to demonstrate it.
Gov
I dont think you have ever had a date, and thus have no experience from which to draw.
Baby steps...
; )
You're late, it's about time.
You actually make Brabantio look reasonable and sane.......sweet.
I'm late? What, are you checking your watch for me? Gosh, you must be obsessed with me. How creepy.
So then, let's bring this back full circle to the topic. If you disagree with the way the networks, and ABC in particular, are interviewing candidates, then what do you propose to do in order to "deliver [yourself] from this"? Or is this just another one of your phases where you adopt these empty poses in order to appear reasonable? And if you are in fact being sincerely reasonable, then why can't you answer Brab's question about the clear double standard that you've adopted here when it comes to "whining" about media behavior?
My original post is clear and concise and directly addresses the topic of this thread. If you, or anyone who agrees with you, believes it reveals a double standard on my part, then you are entitled to that opinion. I am perfectly comfortable with my position on this topic.
Thanks for dropping by. Have a nice evening.
Remember, folks, if you quote Tommy, correctly and in context, in ways that show him being two-faced and hypocritical, he will simply ignore the charge (since he can't honestly answer it), but will attack you and claim that you're "obsessed" with him.
Someone please remind me when Godzilla vs. Tommy's Ego comes out.
I commend you, Brabantio, for going to all that effort, but when Tommy's being unreasonable (which is roughly 85% of the time), and his projections, his ad hominems, and his self-pitying and whining are flowing, it really isn't worth the bother. You can win a wrestling match with a skunk, but why would you want to?
Just to prove the point that he's a skunk. Some posters here think he deserves respect, and it's useful to point out that most of the time he doesn't.
LeftWingCenter deserves the credit, he identified the hypocrisy before I even saw Tommy's post. I think Tommy took issue with me just because I've done it dozens upon dozens of times, so his "obsessed" idiocy wouldn't have been as applicable against someone else.
"Get all the best, Senator..."
"It doesn't matter all that much how this dang thing goes. We've both got a pile. Maybe we can grab some more for ourselves, some more tax cuts--and shove some more of these filthy ordinary Americans down the river. Pile some more debt on them. I'm retiring soon. Hope you and Cindy can come over for dinner again soon. Got your back covered."
"Nice flag lapel pin, Senator."
Corporate media's effectivness as an unpaid republican campaign asset is a bit reduced so far. The money is staying home or going democratic in large.
Without the media's help I don't think McSilly would have an observable semi-viable campaign.With it does he have a chance to collect contender sized vote numbers?
Lots of things could change the equation's sums between here and November. The media's game is a chronic condition that we'll all be dealing with, being ignorant of, or ignoring. Depending upon our wants and means.
gibson's credibility hits a new low... i hear he will be retiring soon...good riddance
I think as I tried to say earlier, Gibson lost all credibility with that debate in April. His condesending tone and glasses, he acted like a prosecutor.
Things is, McCain's flip flops are lot more impactful than Obama's. As in, McCain seems to think that the way Bush set things up with the tax cuts, and cutting corporate taxes has somehow helped our country. I point to the low ebb of our current economy and say, it can't have helped too much.
McCain once a big opponent of torture, has now moved away from that as well. That's a biggie if you ask me. Sort of makes lapel flags pale in comparison.
Of course, apparently, if you're a republican, you can never flip flop. I think Colbert said something about that in his White House correspondents speech. Something about this man is steadfast, no matter what happens on Monday, Tuesday, he'll still maintain the same course on Wednesday. When did staying on course all of the time, even when you're wrong, make for a good leader? That sounds ridiculous.
GIBSON: I'm curious. There's been a lot of speculation in the press...
The hope that this would be a quality interview ended right there with Gibby's 11 words.
It truly was one of the most disgusting pieces of corporate lapdog...
journalism I've seen in quite a while. I thought maybe Gibson was going to go over and give McCain a french kiss.
This piece of corporate crap makes $9 million a year? Are you kidding me?
"McCAIN: Oh, it's obvious that what I say doesn't affect American public opinion nearly as much as what he says does."
At least I'll give McCain credit for knowing the truth, that we, the public, don't care about his ever changing opinion. I long time ago stop watching a lot of news channels. They are so deep into McCain that all shape, size and color of truth evades them.
McCain the "flipper" is being prodded to call someone else a 'flopper" this is a debate I am eager to hear. If ol' John Boy follows this advice he will melt down when confront with his own about-faces.
Worst than softball questions , it was an attempt to discredit one politician by one of the many shameless PRAVDA infotainers in U.S. media , Charlie Gibson , also infamous for his SHAMELESS questioning during one of the debates .
And when McCain said he wasn't ready to label Obama , " a flip flopper ' Gibson replied " YOU THINK SO " , some how that really got me under the skin . These clowns have an agenda , they are not news people because of the latitude they have for opinions and regurgitating accusations , mostly from the rabid right .
What about McCain's flip flop over torture , nah that's not even an issue for the PRAVDA media .
The media, when it all began, decided to portray Sen. Obama (or any Democratic nominee for that matter) as the most liberal senator ever. They stuck to it for a long time though it was not factually true.
When polls came out recently that the American public thinks that he is more mainstream than they wanted, they come out with this new narrative, Obama is moving to the right (or center or whatever). Not to pass up any chance to bash a Democrat, they label him a flip-flopper too in the process.
John McCain has flip-flopped 61 times at counting...and Gibson, with McCain right in front of him, wants the world to believe that Obama is the unprincipled politician that will do anything to win. Amazing.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?ses=51ce36a5f7dc3ac45f7da0ed103f28a3
Liberal bias, my ass.
Also referred to as the "black and white" fallacy, bifurcation is the
presentation of a situation or condition with only two alternatives,
whereas in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.