Palin Questions The Ethics Of Couric And Gibson

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, Palin

This from an interview from Hugh Hewitt’s podcast today

HH: Now Governor, the Gibson and the Couric interview struck many as sort of pop quizzes designed to embarrass you as opposed to interviews. Do you share that opinion?

SP: Well, I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago. But I’m not going to pick a fight with those who buy ink by the barrelful. I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That’s good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really I don’t fight it. I invite it.

Here’s the thing…I have a degree in journalism too, and what Palin seems to be taking exception to is the fact that Couric and Gibson didn’t just take her first answer and be satisfied with it. Actually, it would be seen as slightly unethical by many in the media for a reporter to not follow up and attempt to get the interviewee to answer the question he or she asked.

What is unethical is when you make things up, misrepresent the facts or having a glaring conflict of interest. Neither Couric nor Gibson did anything remotely representing that. They were asking Palin questions that she should have known, and in some cases (especially the Couric interview) she bombed big time. That’s her fault, not unethical journalism’s.

But it doesn’t surprise me coming from somebody who would characterize a reporter writing about a verbatim exchange between herself and a voter as “gotcha” journalism.

Perhaps Palin should have paid closer attention in those classes.


This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 30th, 2008 and is filed under Media, Palin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

14 Responses to “Palin Questions The Ethics Of Couric And Gibson”

  1. boldaq Says:

    Yes, and you’re also very obviously an Obamabot because anyone who wasn’t would admit that Couric and Gibson are also Obamabots whose main objective was to win one for the team. So, get off your phony high horse. There is no objectivity in journalism anymore and you know it. It’s all propaganda.

  2. CaptainUltimate Says:

    When in doubt, blame the media!

  3. Justin Gardner Says:

    Yes, and you’re also very obviously an Obamabot because anyone who wasn’t would admit that Couric and Gibson are also Obamabots whose main objective was to win one for the team. So, get off your phony high horse. There is no objectivity in journalism anymore and you know it. It’s all propaganda.

    Heh, okay boldaq.

    Given that this is your first comment on Donklephant, I thought you should be aware that we discourage calling people names around here.

    So don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    Thanks.

  4. Marvin Music Says:

    Sarah Palin is absolutely ridiculous. All of the other candidates have had to deal with much MUCH much harder interviews than these two. I mean give me a break! How would Palin have dealt with Tim Russert (RIP) or how about she give an interview to Keith Olbermann? Obama gave Bill O’Reilly an interview.

    What’s funny is I think Couric and Gibson are actually Republicans. Do you think Palin realizes these are EASY interviews? She can’t even answer a simple question like “what Newspapers do you read?” It’s sickening that anyone would defend her.

  5. blahmeh Says:

    I’m expecting Palin to have a nervous breakdown live during the next debate, it should be quite entertaining.

  6. John Says:

    justin,

    I think boldaq brings an interesting point to light. There are some people in this world that are so blinded by their faith, moral, political position, that when confronted with the light of truth, they blame it on something else and still see the light in their own way as they see fit. In this instant and many more, the right blame it on the liberal media.

    I say let him speak the ignorance that he has to offer, so that others see the light.

  7. Art Says:

    The point here is that Palin did NOT answer the question, and Couric challenged her on it. She’s upset that she’s taking the heat for it, and is trying to pass the blame off of her.

  8. Stercrazy Says:

    First off, boldaq is obviously trolling. Their statement was not in any fashion constructive nor was it intended to do anything other than inflame.

    As for the article, I’m sorry if all of the Palin supporters out there feel that their girl is being treated unfairly by the media. But quite frankly, if she is capable of doing better in interviews than this, why isn’t she out there doing more?

    Although I do plan on voting Obama (thus making me one of those ‘Obamabots’), I for one would be OVERJOYED if Palin would give at least a handful of interviews where she didn’t come across as a complete ditz and/or lie. Considering she stands a fair chance of becoming vice president, and quite possibly president, I would be a lot less panicky about this election if I could have SOME sort of confirmation that she would not be ushering in the end of America as we know it.

    While I like Obama, I recognize that a great many Americans will not be voting for him. Thus, I’m not going to sit there and live with my head in the sand and completely ignore the other candidate and just assume that “my team” is going to win. I not only want more interviews like the ones Couric and Gibson gave, I think they are VITAL to determine what the various candidates’ stances are.

    If you took umbrage at the way the interviews went, then perhaps your anger is misplaced. If anything, I felt that interviewers thus far have been too easy on Palin. I have yet to see any decent interviews that touched on some of the more stickier subjects regarding Palin. Keep in mind that this person has a very good chance of becoming the ‘leader of the free world’. Does anybody really think that the other side is going to “play nice” just because she’s new to politics or because she’s a woman?

  9. djlollipop Says:

    It is remarkable the blindness of ignorance in this world. It amazes me that people would actually have the ability to say that the interviews came from liberal shills. It is proven that the media is not controlled by liberals actually it is just the opposite, with exception to the internet. Palin got tossed easy questions that she could not handle, denial is enabling bone-headedness.

  10. Lovekraft Says:

    I really can’t see the logic here anymore. It seems that one side of this argument keeps falling back on the “Please, don’t pay attention to what I say. If you do, it makes me nervous” argument. I know thats not a real argument, but, they are using it anyway. This isn’t even a contest anymore, Why do we have to vote on this one?

  11. L Says:

    Even if Gibson and Couric do support Obama (which calling them Obama-whatevers is questionable), the questions were fair and addressed comments Palin had made herself, and no amount of liberal-conspiracy could have produced such an atrocious and embarrassing interview.

  12. Dandy Says:

    Admission, I’m a day-one Obamabot, but was initially open to the idea that a “maverick” like McCain could be an acceptable runner-up choice, in case Barack didn’t come through. Well that hope has faded fast, and the Palin pick made it even more obvious.

    It seems odd that someone who’s billed as a “barracuda”, a tough-as-nails politician with tons of experience, can’t handle a Katie Couric interview. If you can’t handle a former Today Show anchor, how can you possibly handle Putin, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, or Kim Jong Il? Of course seeing that the campaign’s strategy is to hide as much as possibly from the media for fear of embarrassment, I think their rationale against talks with unfriendly nations seems more understandable.

  13. GregR Says:

    Sarah Palin makes Dan Quayle look a good choice. I don’t understand why, if McCain was serious about winning the election he would choose a running mate that is not vice-presidential material. Is he kidding? After the eight years we’ve just had, she is the best he could come up with? Of course she is meant to be a Hillary substitute, but is there no other female in the country that could have been an actual worthy contender? Palin is not. Not even close. She can’t even fake it well.

  14. boldaq Says:

    Two words, libbies – SARAH BARRACUDA! Ol’ Joe better stay out of the water. Sarah ate him up tonight. Imagine what she’d do to an empty suit like Obama. One thing Obama can’t handle is the truth.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: