It was another rowdy week in PBS's corner of cyberspace, marked by a series of wide-ranging discussions on the presidential race, the war in Iraq and Tavis Smiley's traveling museum exhibit on black history.
Gwen Ifill had some intriguing insights on her on her July 15 "NewsHour" interview with Barack Obama.
"It's interesting being backstage at these interviews, Gwen tells the Vote 2008 blog. "Barack Obama is a very controlled individual now. He realizes that everything he says can be seen and broadcast and YouTubed. So once he gets in front of that rolling camera he's very conservative in what he says and what he does."
Not everyone liked the way Gwen conducted the conversation.
One Vote 2008 commenter, rosemarie morris, writes: "Gwen's interview was confrontational rather than civil. Was this deliberate? I was quite surprised. Several friends called me after the interview and shared their feelings which were similar to mine. Obama was cool under fire."
Fellow commenter Howard Cossman says he's supporting John McCain.
"It sounds to me like Obama is simply playing politics with his statements, rather than offering a policy which is based on reality ... and a policy which would actually work," Howard writes. "Let's keep America safe and secure, by electing Senator John McCain in November."
The conversation is also hopping over at YouTube’s PBS Channel.
A "Washington Week" Webcast generated some passionate comments about Iraq sovereignty.
Vivairaqi responds to Washington Week panelist Martha Raddatz's statement that Iraqi army has had some successes in Sadr City, in Basra and in other places in Iraq.
"Is this Fox News?" vivairaqi writes. "[W]hat progress u talking about? Is killing Iraqis progress? or making Iraq 2 a big prison is progress? Stop lying to your people the Iraqis refuse the occupation and reject the government, which came with the occupier and we will fight the army of occupation until the liberation of Iraq."
Meanwhile, Tavis's latest video blog, in which discusses his museum exhibit "America I AM,â" has sparked a YouTube debate about the influence on our culture of African Americans.
MellaLee21 writes, "[W]e have to be careful that as African Americans we always hold on to a free thinking spirit and never feel bullied into being sheep or not allowed to have a different opinion than the NEXT african American. I didnt receive the memo that all Blacks had to fall lockstep in with each other."
"What's interesting to me is that there is a difference between America (the continent) and United States of America (the corporation/government)," Phoenixrisingsun writes. "At times this seems petty, but I believe it is important to understand and keep in mind these two important differences."
What do you think? When you watch TV interviews with presidential candidates, what do you look for? Do you think the panelists on "WW" and similar roundtable shows understand what's happening in Iraq? Are you likely to see Tavis's exhibit if it comes to your town?
Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
NewsTrust
Email This
Gwen Ifell and Obama Interview
I, too, was disappointed in how Ms. Ifell conducted the Obama interview. PBS is known for its objectivity, but objectivity was clearly absent in this interview.
Gwen Ifil has a forthcoming
Gwen Ifil has a forthcoming pro-Obama book coming out and is therefore not qualified as an impartial interviewer in the Palin-Biden debate. She should be replaced IMMEDIATELY unless PBS wants to lose more credibility than what Ifil has already embedded in the public perspective through her own political agendas. Her posturing herself as an impartial interviewer is disgraceful, hypocritical and insidious. I am an independent voter and deeply resent being manipulated by PBS and people like Ifil. If PBS keeps this obviously partisan person in an authoritative positon for tomorrow's debate it violates its own charter and declares to the world that PBS is nothing more than an Obama public organ. I and millions like me would like to think better of PBS. To preserve PBS' ethics, scruples and principles, as it has always claimed to possess, get rid of Ifil as she is obviously a self-serving, self-enriching and dedicated supporter of Obama and her forthcoming book declares that prejudice and bias.
To quote Kipling:
It's Tommy this and Tommy that
And anything you please,
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool;
You bet that Tommy sees.
Presidential Election Campaign > Checking the Facts
I have one comment to the two recent presidential campaign debate, chaired by PBS journalists Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill: there is a need to better shape the questions and the comments/follow-up questions to the candidates' answers based on the facts, meaning the complete facts. Two examples (there are many others):
. Medical insurance: in his first debate with Barack Obama, John McCain made the comment: "we do not want to socialize medical insurance like in Europe, where patients cannot chose their doctors, who are designated by the governement...". Actually, this is exactly the contrary: in many of European countries national medical insurance system, patients are free to go to a doctor, dentist...etc, or another of their choice. Whereas here, in the US, a patient is restricted to go to the specific doctors who are enlisted with the specific insurance company to which he/she subscribes via his/her employer, unless someone is willing and able to pay much higher for going "out of network"...and when you change employers, you are often faced with situations where you cannot go to your usual doctor(s) because they are not affiliated with your new insurance company, which breaks the continuity of the care provided by a doctor and a patient....
...and then, it could be indicated, as background data, that European countries usually have better, sometimes much better (Sweden, France) medical results over their entire populations than the US (see for instance the infant mortality rate, or the average length of life).
. Taxes: some candidates often say "we must reduce taxes, they are too high...etc". But this is only one side of the coin, and there is never a debate on the full equation, ie how much tax for how many services.
Comparing tax levels is meaningless if one does not compare the services and goods that are produced with these taxes. It is like comparing the prices paid for two different cars, but not comparing these cars' characteristics. For instance, European of Far Eastern countries such as Japan or Korea may have (not always) higher income taxes than in the US, but, against these taxes, their governements and public agencies provide many more services to the general population, whether in terms of transportation infrastructure, education, medical care, pension and medical care for seniors, concert halls, public outdoor and sport facilities, museums and other cultural institutions...etc.
So, I suggest it would be beneficial to all to improve the "fact content" of the questions and of the follow-up questions, so as to try to make these political debates more comprehensive and "trustworthy". Otherwise, the candidates' statements may remain superficial, error prone or even completely wrong, thereby mis-leading the public.
Thanks, best regards,
Louis
Post new comment
- Keep your comments focused on the topic at hand.
- Don't use profanity, personal attacks or hate speech.
- Don't promote a business or raise money.
- When all else fails, think "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself.
We reserve the right to remove posts that don't follow these guidelines. By submitting comments, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which include more details.