Fox News' Kelly falsely suggested Ifill's book about Obama was made "public" only after she was announced as debate moderator
SUMMARY: On Fox News' America's Newsroom, Megyn Kelly falsely suggested it was publicly revealed that PBS' Gwen Ifill was the author of the forthcoming book, The Breakthrough, only after it was announced she would moderate the upcoming vice presidential debate. In fact, media outlets, including the Associated Press, reported that Ifill was the book's author well before the announcement.
On the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, host Megyn Kelly falsely suggested it was publicly revealed that PBS senior correspondent Gwen Ifill is the author of the forthcoming book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama (Doubleday), only after it was announced she would moderate the October 2 vice presidential debate. Kelly said: "Critics are asking how Ifill can pen such a glowing review of Senator [Barack] Obama and still be fair during this debate. Ifill has gone public recently talking about the book and how the path to influence has changed for African-Americans." In fact, media outlets, including the Associated Press, reported that Ifill was the book's author well before the August 21 announcement that she would moderate the debate.
Additionally, following an October 1 post on her blog, in which she asserted that "full disclosure to both [candidates] was necessary," Fox News host Greta Van Susteren wrote in a second post that day:
I confirmed for us here on GretaWire: the McCain campaign did NOT know about Gwen Ifill's book (I think I told them when I made my efforts -- emails about midnight -- to find out!) I am stunned ... the campaign (actually both) should have been told before the campaign agreed to have her moderate. It simply is not fair -- in law, this would create a mistrial [emphasis in original].
However, in addition to ignoring the AP report citing Ifill's book, published on July 21, Van Susteren did not note in either blog post that a September 4 Washington Post profile of Ifill also mentioned that she was working on The Breakthrough. In an October 1 post on his Politico blog, Michael Calderone wrote of the Post article: "Ifill discussed it [the book] with Howard Kurtz last month in the Washington Post, in the only profile she's done before the debate. (And I'd imagine someone in the campaign should have read it)."
Ifill's role as moderator of the October 2 vice presidential debate was announced in an August 21 joint statement from the Obama and McCain campaigns, which is posted on the McCain-Palin website:
The two campaigns agreed today on a framework for four General Election debates, to be sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Key elements of the agreement are:
[...]
2. Vice Presidential Debate
- Date: October 2nd
- Site: Washington University (St. Louis)
- Moderator: Gwen Ifill
- Staging/Answer Format: To be resolved after both parties' Vice Presidential nominees are selected.
Prior to the joint announcement of the debate schedule and format, the July 21 AP article -- which is also posted on FoxNews.com -- identified Ifill as "author of 'The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,' slated for publication early next year." Additionally, in a May 8 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer -- portions of which were also quoted in a May 13 article in The Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts -- Ifill discussed the book*:
Q: What do you do when you're not reporting or moderating?
A: Well, I am working on this book now, which is frankly taking almost all of my waking hours when I'm not at work. The book is about an emerging generation of black politicians - in fact, when I'm in town, I'll probably talk to your mayor - including focusing on Barack Obama and [Massachusetts Gov.] Deval Patrick and [Newark, N.J., Mayor] Corey Booker - and trying to talk about what we see happening here, and I think there is something fundamental shifting here, which is shifting before our eyes, that goes beyond Barack Obama. It's my first book, so it's terrifying. But when I'm not working all the time, I'm playing with my godchildren and going to movies and doing things normal people do.
Below is a Doubleday description of Ifill's book:
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama's stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
THE BREAKTHROUGH is a remarkable look at contemporary politics and an essential foundation for understanding the future of American democracy.
From the October 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KELLY: Also, this developing story from the campaign trail this morning: The moderator for tomorrow night's vice presidential debate is now under fire for a book she has written that's set to hit bookstores on January 20, which just happens to be Inauguration Day. PBS' Gwen Ifill, writing a book called, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It focuses on Obama and other emerging African-American leaders. Critics are asking how Ifill can pen such a glowing review of Senator Obama and still be fair during this debate. Ifill has gone public recently talking about the book and how the path to influence has changed for African-Americans.
IFILL [video clip]: The title of the book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. It's taking the story of Barack Obama and extending it to talk about a whole new generation of black politicians who are doing very similar things in very different ways. They're younger, they're more likely to get to power not by marching in marches, the way their parents did, or by leading protests. They have decided to do it by getting educations; basically walking through the doors that their parents opened, then choosing public service in a different way.
KELLY: Well, the official promo for the book calls Senator Obama a "power broker," calls his campaign "stunning," and says this is a "pivotal moment in American history." Fox News contributor Juan Williams knows Gwen Ifill well, and he will join us live on this developing story, which is picking up a lot of heat, in our next hour.
* Text added to include the original May 8 Inquirer interview.
Someone should teach Megyn Kelly how to use a calendar.....
Keith Olbermann showed proof, and held it up to the screen, of the book being presold and dated june 23, before Ms Kelly claims it was made public. Ms Kelly appears to be taking the same road Gregory has taken and ending up in a video rapping with Karl " Traitor ' Rove.
On Fox News' America's Newsroom, Megyn Kelly falsely suggested it was publicly revealed that PBS' Gwen Ifill was the author of the forthcoming book, The Breakthrough, only after it was announced she would moderate the upcoming vice presidential debate.
Well I’m sorry we missed that fact that she is totally biased and thinks Obama is the second coming.
This MMFA article is as stupid as they come. MMFA would like you to believe that the story is how the republicans missed the fact that the democrats were planting a total shill moderate the debate. That’s like blaming the bank teller for the robbery.
Honerable democrats would say something like: Oops, sorry, we didn’t know she was so incredibly biased. We’ll pull her and get someone else in there. Instead you take the slythy position that it’s the Republican's own fault for not catching it?
Nice.
In fact, media outlets, including the Associated Press, reported that Ifill was the book's author well before the announcement.
Well I see, that certainly makes it all ok. *rolls eyes*
PS. Megyn Kelly falsely suggested…
MMFA is lying out their tail on this one. Please show me where Megyn Kelly suggested any such thing. I’m beginning to not trust anything MMFA purports as conservative misinformation.
Grow a scruple MMFA =\
Oops, this is not good for Obama/Biden, in my opinion. If Ifill sticks it to Palin with tough questions, the right will seize on that endlessly, and any of Palin's gaffes will be spun in that context. If she goes easy on Palin, then Palin gets a free ride, basically....and this will be spun that she is capable and qualified, or something.
I was hoping for Palin to be questioned and taken to task just like Biden should be, we deserve to know the most about the people we are electing. I still believe she is unqualified, give her a teleprompter and she is smart and witty, she would make a great TV newsanchor, not a vice-president.
i think they'll both be "taken to task". I hope so anyway.
At this point, it looks like Palin's only chance is to win back some from the right who've abandoned McCain's VP pick in the last few weeks. The undecideds will be swayed by the presidential candidates, not the VP candidates. And they'll be the ones deciding the election.
Opinions on whether Ifill would be biased or not, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU PICK HER TO MODERATE THE DEBATE?
Do you have a single quote by Ifill stating anything she's said as being bias in favor of Obama? I have yet to see an example of her so-called bias.
She's writing a book about Obama. I'm not even claiming bias, just waaaay to close to the subject.
Did she interview him for the book?
She's writing a book about Obama
Wrong. She's writing a book about black politics in America. Obama is only a small, albeit recent, part of the story.
I might add a book that was known since late July.
Gov, let's do a comparison. Let's say the moderator was Bill Orielly who had a book coming out on John McCain. Would you be as dismissive over that as Ifill?
Fair or not the right looks at PBS as a left leaning organization from the start. Why add fuel to the fire? I'm pretty sure the left wouldn't stand for this if this were Fox moderating the debate.
"Fair or not" is the key phrase there. If the view isn't fair then your comparison isn't valid. It's pretty hard to make the case that PBS is really equivalent to FOX, much less Ifill as equivalent to Bill "I am proof of God" O'Reilly.
There's the "appearance" of potential bias. You really have to have a strong bias of your own to disagree with the "many" who think Ifill just doesn't "look good."
And picking on Megan kelly? Cmon. She's way too hot.
I want her to moderate the debate, she is fair. She has done these forums before and has been very fair.
The right is looking for an excuse for a potentially bad performance from Palin. Of course, it doesn't matter if Ifill had never even heard of Obama before the debate. The right would simply make something up, in the same way they made up that Pelosi's speech derailed the bailout bill, or that Obama called Palin a pig. I always hear the complaint that a Dem politician, or a media person, has given an opening to the right wing, and that this person should have know better.
That is bunk
The right doesn't need an opening. They create fake outrage about anything.
You hit the nail right on the head, this is the right looking for excuses.
While on a long drive yesterday, I had a chance to listen to parts of Rush and Hannity. This was the main topic of discussion. A book written by the debate moderator and how she could not be "impartial".
I don't care who asks the questions, Barbie is still going to be exposed (even more than her dismal Couric interview).
Aren't both candidates getting the same questions? Also, why does a book about race automatically make her biased?
Hi Fried,
I don't think it automatically makes her biased, but if the moderator were penning a book about McCain in similar context, don't you think the left would be making an issue of it? Most notably this website.
Tommy wrote:
>>I don't think it automatically makes her biased, but if the moderator were penning a book about McCain in similar context, don't you think the left would be making an issue of it? Most notably this website.
Strawman.
Strawman.
I got yer strawman - right here......
"but if the moderator were penning a book about McCain in similar context, don't you think the left would be making an issue of it?"
Your what-if-vice-versa-hypocrisy-waaahmbulance call hinges on Obama being stupid enough to agree to it.
Look at the rules of this debate and tell me why Obama's camp didn't demand the same type of back and forth exchange that was his debate with McCain. That is pretty stupid if you ask me.
Nice diversion.
Look at the rules of this debate and tell me why Obama's camp didn't demand the same type of back and forth exchange that was his debate with McCain.
Well, for one, it's Biden's debate, not Obama's, and Joe is good enough that he will excel no matter what the format. It wasn't a big enough deal for Biden to whine, pout, and cry as Palin's camp did.
But she isn't writing a book about Obama, she's writing about black politics.
Hi Tommy,
If she were writing a book on old politicians, you may have a point. I am not sure, but did the Dems make a big stink about Bob Scheffer (sp?) in 2004? He is buddies with Bush and his brother works for W. I hope nuance reigns, but I doubt it.
What kinds of questions do you think would show bias?
"I am not sure, but did the Dems make a big stink about Bob Scheffer (sp?) in 2004? "
Good point. I was just listening to local right-wing radio and a caller pointed this out, asking if this could also be seen as a "conflict of interest". Of course the host said no.
Isn't it funny that, suddenly on the eve of the debates, this is an issue. Either the McCain camp is engaging in preemptive damage control, or they didn't do their homework. My money is on the former but either one shows some level of incompetence from the "experience" camp.
That Ifill was writing a book about Obama hasn't been a secret nor is it news. The only thing "new" about it appears to be the the timing of this "discovery" by FOX and the McCain group--conveniently on the eve of the debate. There was plenty of time to have agreed upon a moderator. This is simply another ruse to lower the already subterranean bar being set for Sarah. In short, she'll be considered a winner if she doesn't sink below six feet under!
That Ifill was writing a book about Obama hasn't been a secret nor is it news.
Actually, that would be news, as Ifill is not writing a book about Obama.
Fried
It does not. It is just the start of the Rights propaganda.
Put simply, if she includes chapters about Obama, it's logical to assume that his winning could help her book sales. It doesn't even matter if this a truth or not. The "appearance" is bad. Why didn't miss Ifill disclose this book? She's obviously a smart lady and had to know this storm would hit.
Of course it is. More games are coming from the right , wait till tommorow. I am suprised McCain has not asked to cancel the VP debate for some stupid reason.
I am suprised McCain has not asked to cancel the VP debate for some stupid reason.
Caribou Barbie's dog ate her study notes?
More likely Caribou Barbie's dog got into her lipstick. Now McCain's team is unsure of who to brief for the debate.
I should point out that authors ususally don't pick the titles of their book. Publishers often do that. Ifill's book is about blacks coming to power. It is not about Obama per se. One person she interviews is Colin Powell, for example, who, last time I checked, was in the Bush administration. So by right wing logic, Ifill will be biased towards the Republicans.
Earliest reference to the Book is Feb. 23, 2008 in a Myrtle Beach Sun News article about Tavis Smiley. Athough the page now seems to be unavailable, the Google news archive reference is http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ifill+book+obama&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&scoring=n&scoring=n
Her book was also discussed on WHYY on May 5, 2008. That page has also been removed, but the Google reference is http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ifill+book+obama&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&scoring=n&scoring=n
If I can find those in less than 10 minutes (along with the others mentioned in the Media Matters article), anyone can.
Ifill is already a left leaning journalist
Do you have examples to back this up?
Great point. Ifill is a poor choice, she should recuse herself to avoid any appearance of impropriety. And get the debate back on issues and competence instead of personalities.
There are enough perspectives in the world that just about anything will have an appearance of impropriety.
I just advise anyone who's filled with dread over the possibility of bias to keep their eyes and ears open during the debate for it. Because, even though we're real smart, we have to look out for those other dummies who are so easily fooled by tv and won't recognize it.
Neon,
The point is perception and the narrative that will come from it, you wait. Instead of focusing on the candidates readiness, experience, competence, qualifications, issues and policy, the narrative will be on Ifill and her book. That will not serve Obama well, nor his campaign. It will however be just what the doctor ordered for Palin, and the furthering of diverting attention away from her lack of much of anything.
It is disappointing.
I see your point, Tommy.
But I think we're seeing the waning of the effectiveness of the "liberal media" meme, beginning with the Rep. convention, and more Americans are recognizing it as the ploy that it is. It's probably only going to begin to embarrass the right more and more as they use it. So call me the eternal optimist. I still think that there is a large enough group of non-partisan citizens (those whose votes are hanging in the balance) who aren't about to be talked into believing a claim that their own eyes contradict. I also don't think they'll base their vote on a candidate - vice prez candidate, no less - who was "picked on" during a single debate.
If it's used as an issue, it will be a sermon preached to the choir, nothing more. And the fact is that Obama's not going to win over any partisan republicans at this point anyway,
Didn't McCain's campaign (Rick Davis?) tell us all this campaign is not about issues?
You do raise a good point there re book sales.
Not really, since the book is not about Obama.
Agreed, but his name is in the title, so an Obama Presidency could mean more book sales.
And there are bushes in the Bible (Moses even talked to one), so that's why the Right claims God is on their side.
Wow, this making up sh|t out of whole cloth gets to be fun after a while, no wonder the wingies like to do it.
She does? How so? And if she did have a stake in Obama winning equating to book sales, then why is the book NOT being published until way after the election is over and done with? I mean, seriously, you guys are peddling that her book is pro Obama, and nobody has read it yet, because it hasn't been published, and because his name is in the title, or did you guys forget to read the entire title? Now, I will say, that if she is unfair towards Palin, then by all means, skewer her for that. But it is my understanding that the VP candidates will be fielding the SAME questions from the moderator(s), similar in format to the presidential debates of last week, so how could she be un-fair? Only if she were being un-fair to both candidates correct? And again, if she is unfair to one, and not another, then let's have her out for it, and since you guys can't provide some sort of proof or evidence, other than a book title about race in politics, as proof of her alleged liberal bias, let her moderate. McCain doesn't have an issue with it, so why should the rest of us? I don't. I will judge her performance the same as anyone else's, based on her performance, not her perceived bias one way or another.
I think that it's pretty safe to say that Jim Lehrer has probably said bad things about republicans and democrats over the course of his career, and I'm sure that he has said glowing things about democrats and republicans, and I'm willing to bet Ifill has done the same.
Mag,
I have no doubt that Ifill will be fair to both. But you know as well as I do that if you give the diehard rightwingers who push Palin, the slightest of openings, especially when it comes to fighting the big bad media, they will drive a truck through it all day long. Expect to see it full force after the debate, just long enough to sequester her again from the media.
I do see your point on that as well, but then again, McCain-Palin have been on an all out media attack over the last few weeks anyway, so at this point in time, there would be nobody out there who would be considered "OK" by the right wingers who are swallowing the hook, line, and sinker about alleged bias and or smears against Palin. Know what I mean?
I have no doubt that Ifill will be fair to both. But you know as well as I do that if you give the diehard rightwingers who push Palin, the slightest of openings, especially when it comes to fighting the big bad media, they will drive a truck through it all day long.
Tommy has just described his own modus operandi down to the last nut and bolt.
You're nuts.
Iffel is not biased. It is not like Sean Hannity is moderatiing the debate.
I like Iffel, and think she will do a good job. My point is that if the McCain camp finds this factoid objectionable, it was their job to find it out before they signed off on her (of course, that would have required using the Google on a computer, and we're not sure what their level of expertise is there).
It's very possible that they did know this in advance, and are just demonstrating faked outrage. So, they're either incompetent, or liars (or both).
This should silence everything
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081001/pl_politico/22784
As Limbaugh said, (as reported by the article), Ifill now has a financial interest in Obama winning the race. That's a conflict of interest, which should preclude her from moderating. It's a disgrace that the liberal msm is giving this issue a pass
Talk to McCain, he does not have an issue with it.
Still not seein' how Ifill has a "financial interest in Obama winning."
A book about black politics will sell regardless of whether Obama wins. The fact that he's a major contender for the Presidency (which is the extend of his mention in Ifill's book) is enough even if he doesn't win.
Sorry, I'm not gonna put much stock in any of Limbaugh's analysis.
Sorry, "extend" should be "extent"
I'd be interested to hear about the factors that would make Ifill's book sell better after an Obama win than before the election.
Really, at this site you are starting a comment with "As Limbaugh said" . Why don't you just cut yourself open and put in a half starved weasel, it will be much less painfull than exposing yourself as totally unable to complete a coherent thought without coaching from a higher authority.
Or, in this case, a much lower authority.
then you agree she should not moderate the debate
If it's unfair for Palin to face Ifill, how will she be able to face Al Qaeda?
I guess the right wing believes that an African American journalist is tougher than bin Laden.
Are you making comparisons between Al Qaeda and Ifill? The ever diligent researchers at mmfa take such things very literally. (see dumb O'reilly thread).
I'm making the same comparison between Ifill and Al Qaeda that Roger Ailes made between Fox News and Al Qaeda.
If you're going to be this dense.
Gwen Ifill is not as tough as Al Qaeda. It's like saying you can take on Mike Tyson, but complaining about having to fight Glass Joe.
If it's unfair for Palin to face Ifill, how will she be able to face Al Qaeda?
Not only that, how will she ever be able to look over at Russia again?
That's easy. Putin's head rises up with the sun every morning.
The Far Right continues to embarrass itself by handing wholly fabricated non-issues like this to pert script-readers like Megyn (Who?) Kelly. and by recruiting 3rd-tier journalists like Greta Van Susteren to chime in equally off-key. (I would be curious to know if Greta thinks that SHE would have been a better choice for an "objective" moderator. )
Couldn't the Democrats object on the grounds that a lone female moderator might favor the female candidate? This fake objection would be like Democrats complaining that John McCain would have received an unfair from a Tim Russert-moderated campaign by virtue of their friendly relationship from McCain having been on Russert's show over the years.
I watch Ifill regularly, and while I have wondered during the Democratic primaries what her private thoughts must be, whether she empathized more with Obama as an African-American or Hillary Clinton as a woman, her journalistic integrity is prety much impeccable. I have seen and heard first-hand redneck racists attack her objectivity solely on the basis of her gender and race, without so much as having ever seen her work. The objections from Fox resonate in harmony with these types of objections.
I am embarrassed for the Republicans. Full disclosure: One and a half years ago, I thought that McCain would be the best candidate for President, and lamented that he might not get the chance. But his positions and decisions as nominee have led me to something I thought I could not do: support and Obama presidency. I believe it is the desperation of McCain, the Republicans, and the Far Right that motivates these ridiculously wild and non-sensical attempts to divert the public (cf the Palin nomination). McCain deserves to be remembered with more respect and dignity than I believe he will be after this debacle of a campaign.
McCain deserves to be remembered with more respect and dignity than I believe he will be after this debacle of a campaign.
Outstanding point and you are correct, sadly McCain gave up and gave in to the wishes of the same people who smeared him in 2000.
McCain deserves to be remembered with more respect and dignity than I believe he will be after this debacle of a campaign.
Maverick's achievements as president will greatly influence how he's remembered. My guess is that he'll be remembered in posterity for his heroism in vietnam, and for what he accomplishes during his presidential term(s). These accomplishments likely will overshadow all the work he's done as senator.
Are you joking? McCain will not get elected as Dog Catcher, He is finished. He is a disgrace.
But the earliest that the "Mavrick" could be elected to the presidency is in November 2012. He'd be 76 then. And that's only if President Obama decides not to run in 2012.
Maybe you're talking about him winning the condo presidency at the Del Boca Vista Retirement Home. If so, ignore my first paragraph.
With the addition of Palin, McCain's ticket has become a farce. I don't see how he's going to overcome that this late in the game when he's spending so much time convincing himself in front of the camera that he made the right VP choice.
Interesting how Media Matters jumps on what Van Susteren wrote
What the hell are you talking about ? This is not about Van Susteren.
It quotes Kelly's comment about Van Susteren's blog.
It also has periods in it. Does that make it biased in your eyes toward women? That makes as much sense as anything else you have posted.
Have you read the un published book yet? How can you say it is pro Obama when you haven't read it. Just by the title? Or is her book about race and politics in the AGE of Obama, and I'm sure he'll have a place in her book, he being, you know, black, and with the good chance of being President.
Can you point to certain stories where she was totally biased in her views? Can you provide context from her book showing that she is totally biased in favor of Obama (who isn't debating by the way)? Can you watch the debate with a subjective eye, and then come back here and describe what you see instead of pretending that someone is biased, when she isn't?
The info I have about the book comes staight from Ifill herself. Try watching it on YouTube. I never said Ifill was "totally biased." But judging from HER OWN WORDS, her book it is certainly not a hit job on Obama or anyone else she wrote about. it sounds like a good read, and it probably will be. But she shouldn't be moderating this debate.
"I have no idea if she is biased or not...but anyone who says they aren't biased is lying. "
WHAT?
Did you read the remainder of the post, or are you like other liberals who take things out of context?
Sorry, I couldn't read the rest of your post. My eyes started bleeding from taking in so much stupidity at once.
If you were intellectually honest, you would go after MSNBC and other leftist "news organizations" for their mistakes about conservatives and Republicans. But you only trash people whose message you don't like.---MustBeKidding
Holy macaroni, you MustBeNew. Go to the MMFA Issues/Topics section and then Media Personalities or use their search box for Chris Mathews and Tim Russert. They are/were big stars here.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26973494/
I thought debates are supposed to be about the persons debating, not the moderator.
This is why it was bad to take the League of Women Voters out of the loop with regards to running the debates etc..
Posting that several times doesn't make it true. You have not proven that to be the case yet.
I agree. Because she is a woman, she'll automatically side with Palin.
Ifill's biases are in the eye of the beholder.
Randy
Media Matters is such a joke. They spend so much effort and time making a case that only their miniscule number of readers would believe. Two obscure references that happened to precede the announcement of her as a moderator are about as flimsy as you can get! One of them was in paragraph 20 of 23 in the article and doesn't give any details - - just a passing comment. And neither article was about Ifill or the book.
I got it,,, two simple poll questions. 1. What percentage of the public was aware of the book and its emphasis on Obama before she was named as the moderator? and 2. Now that you know about the book, do you believe Ifill can be an impartial moderator? Duh!
"Ifill has gone public RECENTLY"
Implying that Ifill had until recently concealed her pending book. That's the distortion, plain for the world to see.
Randy
Apparently the news of Ifills' book was widely known.... it's been reported that the debate commission didn't know about the book before she was chosen, nor did she reveal to the debate commission that there was such a book.