Jump to content

Charlie Gibson is a hack.....


hollies65

Recommended Posts

On the O'Reilly Factor yesterday,he asked 3 former Bush administration people about the "Bush Doctrine" and all three couldn't agree on it.There are four separate parts to it and Sarah Palin focused on the 4th part.Gibson is a left-wing hack and had no intention of giving a fair and balanced interview.His goal was to make Sarah look bad,which did not happen.He was barely cordial to her.But when the messiah(Obama) is on ,they all fall all over themselves trying to kiss his butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What shocks me is that so many of us seem shocked that the media is biased... a large percentage are "left-leaning" and not ashamed to show it... They've been wearing their political agenda's on their sleeves for decades now... frown

Hmmm, and Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier, and Bill O'Reilly are "neutral?..just sayin'...

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally posted by pauliemississippi:

What shocks me is that so many of us seem shocked that the media is biased... a large percentage are "left-leaning" and not ashamed to show it... They've been wearing their political agenda's on their sleeves for decades now... frown

Hmmm, and Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coultier, and Bill O'Reilly are "neutral?..just sayin'...

Jeff

I'm not sure you can count Rush Limbaugh in this argument... he makes no bones about the fact that he's conservative... and does not try to pass himself off as a journalist. Like him or not, he acknowledges he is a "talk radio host"... and so, IMHO, he's not to be held to the same "neutral" reporting that a supposedly "agenda-free" reporter should be...

Again I hearken back to my younger days... when we were taught that "Journalism" is "who, what, when, where, how & why"... and that any opinion... the readers, the editors, or the reporters... was to be kept to the editorial pages... If you wrote a story with any visible slant to it, you were... well, an unprofessional hack who ended up relegated to writing copy for "The National Enquirer"...

Now it's all about how sensational you can be... how much of the story you can be... and how much of your point of view you can inject into the story... even if it means fabricating the news... misleading the public to the point of lying... just to try to force your views on people... without really having the balls to stand up and say "This is what I believe..."

While we have "freedom of the press" in our nation, we need "freedom FROM the press"... because they have mutated into a monster... like a disease-infested, puss-dripping, scab-covered characature of what they were intended to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I haven't been following things so close, but I saw parts of this interview, and was kinda shocked. Charlie Gibson always seemed like a responsible, decent guy/journalist.

But in the interview, if you looked at his face, he appeared to hold her in utter contempt - stared at her as if she was a Jeffrey Dommer, John Wayne Gacy, or somebody else in that class of human being. And when she answered a question adroitly, he seemed to be crushed...as if his only objective was to humiliate her..

He lost me. Won't watch him again..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, there was a point where, when Charlie realized that Sarah had no idea what the Bush Doctrine is, he defined it for her! He was trying to help her by explaining something that she should already have known.... Check it out, around 50 seconds in on this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z75QSExE0jU&feature=related

Heck, he could have persisted, and said, "Tell us what the Bush Doctrine is. You don't know, do you?" Instead, he told her. I thought that was a nice way to let her off the hook a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: When I watch that clip of Sarah trying to respond to the Bush Doctrine question, man, it brought back some bad memories. It's that moment when the prof hits you with a question from the chapter you didn't read the night before, because you'd been out partying or chasing women or goofing off. So you pause, and you hem and haw a little bit, and then you launch into a bumbling batch of bullcrap that you hope -- beyond all hope -- will slither past the prof. But he knows all too well that you don't have an iota of understanding of the subject.... Ouch.... Just thinking about it gives me a cold sweat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still getting to know her, but so far I like her a lot.

I'd be comfortable if she got thrown into the presidency tomorrow. She's got as much pertinent experience as Obama, though I haven't ever argued against Obama because of experience....I've got other issues with him.

To me principal, stand on issues, personal qualities, and success with the experience you have trumps quantity of experience...and she seems to be strong on these things.

Another thing. She has more political experience than did Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln when they entered the White House. And they did pretty OK - I'd put each in the top 5 of alltime great presidents..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh...Larry, it sounds , from your responce as if you are a bit fuzzy on what the "Bush Doctorine" is...I mean you know it has changed in meaning a few times...right?

H-65, it sounds from your response as if you don't know how to spell "response." Heh-heh. haha (Is it one "heh" or two?)

Seriously, I don't doubt that most Americans would have the same response that Ms. Palin did if asked about the Bush Doctrine. But she's the one running for VP! She needs to know! It would be like a candidate for a head coaching job in football not knowing what a 4-3 defense is!

PS: Sarah, if you're reading.... Here's a useful Frontline/PBS page on the Bush Doctrine that details its chronology, if you care to read: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/cron.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (James) declare this thread to be over. Hollies (as usual) wins. Final score:

Hollies (and helpers): 102

LC: 1 birthday (we'll give LC a point for appreciating Sarah is hot)

Austinberries, Pretender Etc. etc -3 (it would have been a -10 but they at least try hard)

James has spoken..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure H-65 loves your support and rule (and smoke-blowing?). But fortunately, James, you're not the boss of me, or this thread! Whew!

Now get back to wallpapering your room with those Sarah Palin pin-ups! Do you have any of the swimsuit-contest ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a Sarah vid for your collection: a 1988 bit when she was a TV sports news anchor. Check it out.... Pretty interesting, and cute as a button as she sort of jitters through reports on college hoops, the NBA, and spring training (remember Gregg Jefferies, Mets fans?), as well as the big story in Alaska, the Iditarod.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20222714,00.html

(PS: Did she really make mention, at 40 seconds, of "the state's beaver round-up"?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a bit of irony in trying to "embarrass" Sarah in that all this shows that she is not someone who has "desired" the office all of her adult life... where as Obama, Biden, and even McCain to a degree, have wanted the supposed pinnacle of world power for the biggest parts of their lives...

And personally I find Sarah hotter now than when she was the "sports-babe"... wink

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...