Press bias against Palin because she's a woman or Rep?

[Blog]

Is the press biased against Palin because she's a woman or Republican?

This is a laughable example from Gibson (who interviewed both Obama and Palin), the following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/0...uestions-more/

[Gaviani]

Republican. Specifically, she's a Republican with the Audacity of Challenging Obama.

Next question.

[Dalaena]

Assuming that the reports are correct, it's actually probably because of both.

Once someone has been put in the "other" group, it seems like there's no amount of disrespect you can show them that is inappropriate.

I also read a long time ago that a man is defined by the "lowest" ranking job he ever held.

"Wow, he's president now, and he used to work at McDonald's!"

Whereas a woman is limited by the lowest job she ever held.

"Well, she's president now, but she used to work at McDonald's."

I've seen that time and again, and we're seeing it now. Palin's lack of experience is somehow a huge limiting factor for her, while Obama's lack of experience means change for the nation. It's pretty silly in general.

[kestra]

I think the media is hounding Palin because so much of her history of facts and truths simply aren't holding up!

As much as I despise him, Bill O'Reilly grilled Obama pretty good, and unlike Palin, he exposes himself to the media far more than she does. If you can't handle the slings and arrows of the national media, how are you going to handle speaking to foreign governments and parliaments? That is a huge tell of incompetence. So until she borrows Hillary's balls (the SNL skit was priceless, btw) she's going to continue getting the barrage of inquiries from the press.

[Snrrub]

Maybe because interview questions posed to someone that has already been in the national spotlight for years, and whose experience has already been thoroughly debated during a long nomination process would be different than those in the first ever primetime interview of someone who just entered the national spotlight? Call me crazy, but that might have something to do with it.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Maybe because interview questions posed to someone that has already been in the national spotlight for years, and whose experience has already been thoroughly debated during a long nomination process

By nomination process, you mean the hero worship process that even the liberal Saturday Night Live had to mock?

Seriously?

But here's the shockingly sad thing about all of this: aside from the worshipful gushing by a lot of the media, the way Obama is being treated by the media is probably the way most (if not all) candidates should be treated. The media shows him enormous respect, they give him ample time to describe issues that are important to him, they don't cut him off, and they don't play "gotcha" with stupid trivialities.

The "special treatment" of Obama is indeed a serious issue, but not as much for the unfairness as for the fact that it shows how inappropriately the media behaves the rest of the time.

The self labeled "Fourth Branch of Government" has died on the tree and needs to be pruned.

[Blog]

Originally posted by Snrrub
Maybe because interview questions posed to someone that has already been in the national spotlight for years, and whose experience has already been thoroughly debated during a long nomination process would be different than those in the first ever primetime interview of someone who just entered the national spotlight? Call me crazy, but that might have something to do with it.

It actually sounds like the other way around, I don't buy the best ABC could come up with was "Will you visit Iraq?" If his positions are well known, then the questions should get more in-depth, not less.

[Malacasta]

Originally posted by Blog
It actually sounds like the other way around, I don't buy the best ABC could come up with was "Will you visit Iraq?" If his positions are well known, then the questions should get more in-depth, not less.

I don't know Charlie Gibson, but I do know that the right wing blogosphere was happy with the Gibson choice and the left were pissed when it was first announced. I read lots of analysis that said that they went for Gibson because it would be a nice softball introduction.

There's been a turn in the media over the last few days with respect to Palin and McCain. Many outlets are outright calling them liars now where as before the mainstream was pretty gushy bout the GOP VP choice.

It wouldn't surprise me if Gibson came on harder than everyone initially thought he would purely because journos were getting really pissed that several debunked lies were repeated verbatim day after day, after many many warnings that perhaps they should change their story.

Really, if you're going to introduce a VP candidate who sells herself as a beauty queen hockey mom rather than someone who has a curiosity about the world, or someone who sells themselves as a reformer against pork, when most of her talking points are fabrications or misrepresentations, then it would be a disgrace if the media didn't treat that person with a spotlight.

This person COULD be your next president.

Frankly I think it's sexist that people are even suggesting the Gibson interview was harsh. She's a fucking pollie, if she can't stand up to a few questions on where she stands on several real issues, then she's too fucking weak to run. As would any man be.

[Malacasta]

Gak, sorry, baby had a tanty in the middle of that.

Just another quick thought. I couldn't imagine a pollie running for a big office in Australia not facing Kerry O'Brian on the 7:30 report. The media would be up in arms in Oz if a PM or deputy PM cloistered themselves like Palin has so close to an election (that's not to say that Oz media is good, it's not).

There has been heaps of sexism in the MSM against sarah palin but I don't think an interview which discusses policy is an example of it.

I do think the pretty puff pieces and rude gossip pieces on her family are examples of that sexism though. And I think discussions about MILFS and so on are further example.

[Blog]

Originally posted by Malacasta

Frankly I think it's sexist that people are even suggesting the Gibson interview was harsh. She's a fucking pollie, if she can't stand up to a few questions on where she stands on several real issues, then she's too fucking weak to run. As would any man be.

You misunderstand, I think the questions asked of Palin are fair (except the one where she was apparently misquoted), but Obama should have gotten similar types of questions, and I have not heard or come up with a good argument why he didn't.