Attacking Gwen Ifill: Working the refs, or something more?

Until this week started, PBS host Gwen Ifill looked like a pretty lucky woman.

Though critics complained that she, the only non-white, non-senior citizen moderating a major debate in this year's election, got stuck with the lower-tier vice presidential contest, Sarah Palin's emergence as a hot-button issue ensured this content would be widely watched.

But then Ifill broke her ankle after tripping at home with a bunch of debate materials. And then on Wednesday, the attacks started.

The first one came from Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist of color who has made a career of attacking issues related to people of color in ways white pundits cannot risk. She noted the name of Ifill's upcoming book, The Breakthrough: Race and Politics in the Age of Obama, then observed: "There is nothing “moderate” about where Ifill stands on Barack Obama. She’s so far in the tank for the Democrat presidential candidate, her oxygen delivery line is running out."

That was all Fox News needed to post an article titled "VP Debate Moderator Pens Pro-Obama Book" despite the fact that the book hasn't been released yet, and its subject matter seems to be more about the rise of a different kind of black politician in America, as exemplified by Obama. Anchor Meghan Kelly picked out words Ifill used to describe Obama's campaign including "stunning" and "a pivotal moment in American history" -- curiously, those were also words many reporters used to describe Obama when he won the Democratic nomination.

Here's a further description of the book from Amazon.com: "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."

It seems obvious to me this is more about "working the refs" -- positioning Ifill publicly so that any stumbles by Palin during tonight's debate can be blamed on the moderator rather than the candidate. And, although it seems unlikely knowing Ifill's tough nature, there's the bonus of maybe intimidating her into asking questions that  aren't so tough tonight.

Which is too bad; it seems we have reached the point where journalists can't even acknowledge and explore the history-making dimensions of Obama's campaign without being accused of the worst sort of partisanship.

Compare coverage between CNN and Fox News:

*

Comments

[Eric Deggans]

That's funny. I don't believe you'd be accusing me of that bias if I wasn't black. So I guess we're even.

I have explained my reasoning. I think the fact that scores of journalists knew about the book she was writing -- including me -- months before this debate and never thought to challenge her, speaks volumes. And I have already explained why I wasn't as snarked about this as others were.

By the way, if you watch the CNN clip in this post, you will see Washington Post media critic Howie Kurtz -- who is white -- defend her as well. Also, PBS colleague Judy Woodruff -- who is also white -- defended her as this controversy was spreading.

Maybe someday I'll be able to stand up for a black journalist who I think it criticized unfairly without being accused of reverse racism.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[bob]

Eric, I don't believe you'd be defending Ms. Ifill with such vigor if she were white. you are totally wrong on this, by the way. It is a major conflict of interest.

[RagsTTIger]

I think Gwen did a good job. She moderated the event and blended in to the woodwork. That was her task.

It is just like a good baseball umpire. When the game is over people should be talking about the game, forgetting the officials. Then you know you did a good job.

[Hello Again Hello]

Gretchen:

You're missing the point.
It doesn't matter how "professional" Gwen was, and she certainly did do a fair job last night.

The problem is that Gwen, the author of a forthcoming book on Obama, due to be published on Inauguration Day, obviously has a stake in the outcome of the election.

I'll say it more slowly: If Obama wins, her book will get lots of attention and probably make loads of money. If Obama loses, then a book titled "The Age of Obama" is going to be a dud.

When you have a financial stake in a subject that you're covering - or a debate you're moderating - then your ability to cover or moderate impartially will always be in question.

This is classic, clear-cut conflict interest.

It's disturbing that some journalists don't recognize it as such. If they can't see this simple case for what it is (conflict of interest), then how are they going to be able to recognize more complicated cases involving conflicts of interest? This, in part, is why so many readers and viewers don't trust MSM - because so many reporters let political bias get in the way.

Dems should thank McCain for not making a big deal out of it.

To illustrate the partisan nature of Dems' non-response on this: How would Dems feel if last night's debate had been moderated by someone who had gained special access to McCain and had penned a book titled "Groundswell: War Heroism and Politics in the Age of McCain," and if that book was already written and due to be published on Inauguration Day?

I can tell you what would happen. Dems, with the help of their Obama-supporting allies in the MSM, would have demanded that that moderator be replaced. McCain didn't make that demand.

At the very least, Ifill should have presented her conflict up front, on the air, at the start of the debate.

And if she wanted to really save her credibility, and the credibility of the Election Commission, she would have been upfront, months ago, about her conflict of interest.

The Commission, had it acted ethically, would have rightfully responded by replacing Ifill with someone who didn't present a conflict or the appearance of a conflict.

Instead, Ifill and the EC took the easy, least ethical way out, openly ignoring the conflict of interest and even attacking those would question them on this.

How disappointing.

[Time To Take Out The "House" Trash]

If nothing else positive comes out of this "bailout" mess, I'd like to think that everyone would VOTE out every. incumbent.

Regardless of party.

Just take the trash out.

Everyone has had enough of ineffective, pork-eating 'career' politicians. And god knows we've all had enough of corrupt individuals like Stevens, Kennedy, et al.

You don't leave the trash inside your own house for 20 years, do you?

Then let's take the trash out of OUR House -- immediately.

And so while the nation watched a compromised moderator and two relatively meaningless VP candidates engage in some sort of "debate" about energy, taxes and the usual stuff, the economy continus to buckle and it is uncertain that the House of Representatives will get off its as% any time soon and do its job by passing legislation to fix the economy.

Meanwhile, more and more businesses are feeling the effects of the lack of credit and are cutting jobs. And consumers with good credit scores can't get car loans, home loans, etc. or even use lines of credit to live on when they lose their jobs.

Nice job, Congress. Pelosi, Hoyer, Boehner and other leaders in the House, as well as the bozo Republicans and Democrats who voted no on the proposal earlier this week are now squarely to blame for failing to intervene and get things going on the right direction. Even the Senate managed to get something done on this Wednesday.

This proves it does not matter which candidate wins the White House...we are suffering from too many incompetent fools in the House of Representatives.

I hope ALL incumbents, regardless of party, get voted out.

Naturally that will not occur. But it IS the way to start fixing things over the long haul.

[David ALWAYS Kills Goliath]

I really don't know what's funnier: Gwen not being able to recognize the conflict of interest sitting in her lap, or the fact that anybody on this board expects Eric to do anything other than support his fellow "journalist" Gwen?

C'mon, people, wake up and smell the coffee. This debate, along with Gwen, is irrelevant. The next President of the United States is going to be..........awful. No matter which one of those clowns wins, we're in for a really bad 4-year stretch.

[Rockabilly]

Well good for you then. Glad to hear you hate so equitably.

[drinklime]

WOW just before 9:15 PM palin just attacked the moderator! just as planned!

"i may not answer the way you(biden) or the moderator want"

out of NOWHERE

[drinklime]

i dont remember saying anything about msnbc... thats the problem. fox makes you think that because i hate fox i automatically love msnbc. i hate both for the same reasons.

[Rockabilly]

You mean in contrast to those models of impartiality and probity on MSNBC?

[drinklime]

you cant really blame all of these fox news viewers for being upset. the concept of impartial reporting is foreign to them.

[Gretchen]

Hello Again Hello- Please give it up! I heard those talking points last on O'reilly. YOU would be more "credible" if you were expressing your own opinions.

Eric- I agree with you. First of all, the Republicans are just trying to use Gwen as a scapegoat because they do not want to talk about how UNPREPARED Sarah is. Poor Sarah....

The whole problem with Hello's argument is that no matter who the moderator is, they have their own personal opinion coming into the debate. Gwen is very professional and will conduct the debate just as anyone else would. You have no proof that she won't.

Where's your faith in Sarah? Can't she take a few questions? Oh I forgot... we have already seen her is action (And it aint pretty)! I see why the Repubs what to make a big issue out of the moderator.

[Hello Again Hello]

Faulty analogy - not a parallel.

Here's a better one: If Bob Woodward were writing a book about "McCain and the Politics of Mavericks" or whatever, and he had significant access to McCain, and the book was timed to be published on Inauguration Day, then should he play a part in a nationally televised debate that could impact the election?

No. Why? Because he would have a stake in the outcome of the election.

It's really that simple.

Ifill, by acting as if she sees no conflict, or sees no reason why anyone would see a conflict, really hurts her own credibility as a journalist.

[Eric Deggans]

Much as I admire and appreciate David Zurawik's work, i must disagree with him here.

By his definition, no journalist could interview people they cover for a book without creating a serious conflict of interest because they make money off the book.

Interviewing someone for a book you control and write yourself is nothing like collaborating with a subject to tell their story -- and I'm afraid David is conflating the two instances.

Indeed, by David's definition, should Bob Woodward be allowed to participate in the Washington Post's coverage of the Bush Administration? He's written four books about them, with significant access to the White House.

I just don't think that analogy makes sense to me.

[beltwaybandit]

There is a fairly simple test to see if this is truly an ethical or credibility issue:

* If a member of congress owned stock in a defense contractor, should they vote on whether to give that contractor budget dollars?

* If a judge is writing a book on either the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil suit, should they be allowed to moderate the trail in front of a jury?

* who is the first organization to go after a sitting President or member of congress if they even appear to be too closely related to a lobbyist, campaign donor or a company upon which they may regulate or decide on future issues? The media of course. That is their job.

Even the apperance of conflict of interest is enough to raise serious, valid questions. Gwen Ifill knows that. Any credible journalist without ulterior motives does.

I believe Ifill probably will play her role correctly despite the appearance of conflict.

But come on...you are writing a book that includes favorable points about Obama's impact and you want everyne to believe you're going to behave in an unbiased fashion?

That is not a credible argument.

[RagsTTIger]

I've always thought of Ms. IFill as being pretty fair on the air. Face it, everyone has views on everything. The issue, for real journalists, is to offer a balanced presentation so the viewers/readers/listeners get the facts without the bias.

In this case its a double edge sword. If Ms. Ifill even makes an facial expression she will be called on it. The public knows what is fair and what is Gotcha, such as Couric. As long as Ms Ifill plays it straight there shouldn't be an issue.

I do believe, in the interest of fairness, that Ms. Ifill should have disclosed this fact to the Debate Committee months ago. I guess she wasn't properly vetted?

[Rockabilly]

A partial list of Gwen Ifill's questions for the VP debate

Mayor Palin, Barack Obama is a handsome, charismatic demigod. How many boxes of Kleenex will you need after your crushing loss?

Senator Biden, what is your favorite color? And if you have time for a follow-up question: Why?

Mayor, you talk funny and you own a tanning bed. Why haven't you released Trig's birth certificate?

Senator, have you seen those pictures of Obama in his swim trunks? If not, I have them right here.

Mayor, what are the names, ages, and blood types of all 71 members of the Belgian Senate? And why are you unwilling to admit that your inability to instantly produce any and every fact I demand makes you unfit to stand in the way of history?

Senator, you've spoken at length. Could you please continue?

Mayor, which is your preferred method of stifling dissent, banning books or burning them? Since it's both, please explain how you can deny the accusation that you're a fascist, which I am making now.

Senator, could you please sign my book?

[Hello Again Hello]

David Zurawik, television critic for the Baltimore Sun, is one of many journalists making the same points I've been making.

Fact is, Ifill has a clear conflict, and she needs to acknowledge it and/or pass the baton to another moderator.

Here's part of his column:

"The book, which has not yet been released, is titled Breakthough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, and Ifill can be seen talking about it in a promotional video on YouTube here. As she describes it, Obama is one of four African-American politicians featured in the book. Ifill says she interviewed the Democratic candidate for the book, and that is the first conflict.

As someone who has written a non-fiction book, I know access can make or break the project. If Obama gave her access, as she says that he did, then they were essentially in business together -- him in telling her story, and her in recording and then reporting it.

That conflict has already been done -- and can't be undone. It can only be acknowledged by Ifill to the tens of millions of voter-viewers who will be watching tonight, so that they can judge her accordingly. She should also acknowledge to viewers whether or not she presents his story in a positive light.

Her other potential conflict is the one that commentators at the conservative Web sites have emphasized -- the vast difference between the value of the book should Obama be elected president versus him being defeated. I do not know how Ifill can convince some viewers that the difference doesn't matter to her.

In the end, it doesn't even matter if there is a genuine conflict. There is already clearly the appearance of one, and that is a serious enough problem.

Last week, in an interview with me about his goals as moderator of the first presidential debate, PBS anchorman Jim Lehrer said, "Fairness and the appearance of fairness are critical, because everything must appear to be absolutely straight and driven by the views of these people who want to be president, rather than by some agenda that the moderator may have." "

[Oscar]

This is so silly. Faux News and the rest will do absolutly anything to distract and deflect. I think it is interesting that they are already planting the seeds that the reason she has done poorly has nothing to do with her, and the debate hasn't even happened yet.

Journalists like Ifill write books all the time. Tom Brokaw has made a career of off his "Greatest Generation" shpeel and yet no one accuses him of being "in the tank" for McCain. Or at least they shouldn't.

Cut her some slack, she is being attacked by the right, just after the left used her as a tool to run Imus off the air. She will do a great, tough, right down the middle job tonight, and Palin will either succeed or fail based on her own ability and not the moderator.

[Hello Again Hello]

A book with a title that includes "breakthrough" and "The Age of Obama" isn't pro-Obama?

Who are you kidding?

re: "Indeed, if he loses, she can excavate the cause of the loss and add further dimension to the work."

Not really true. The book's already been written, and slated for publication. Publishers work far in advance. The publication date, Inauguration Day, was clearly scheduled (by the publisher, if not by Ifill) with the expectation that Obama would win.

If he doesn't win, the book's introduction and the section on Obama will have to be rewritten, and the publication date delayed. And even if that's the case, the book is going to be of FAR less interest to readers than if Obama were to win.

Again, this is called having a stake in the outcome of the election. Which most journalists would recognize as representing a clear conflict of interest.

Perhaps you're saying that we should hold debate moderators to a lower standard than we hold journalists?

In other words, do you believe it's okay for debate moderators to come to the table with clear conflicts of interest?

[Hello Again Hello]

Not really.

If Ifill's book were history - as in, already written, in the past - that would be less troublesome than the fact that it is yet to be published, and its success hinges on the outcome of the race.

Are you seriously telling us that that doesn't represent a conflict of interest?

Don't you think it would be better for all concerned if the moderator didn't carry baggage that would automatically lead others to question her objectivity?

You're bending over backwards to defend a situation that's ethically untenable.

Sad.

[Eric Deggans]

And I don't agree that her book is clearly pro-Obama.

Regardless of whether he wins or loses, Obama has made a singular schievement that lots of author will explore. Indeed, if he loses, she can excavate the cause of the loss and add further dimnesion to the work.

[Eric Deggans]

Hmm. Interesting how you have ignored most of my answer to focus on the last paragraph.

I've said before, I think the journalist's history and reputation are important. If Tom Brokaw or Bob Schieffer were writing a book about McCain, I wouldn't be nearly as worried as seeing Brit Hume or David Brooks do it and then try moderating a debate.

[Hello Again Hello]

And a sequel:

Although Ifill's book is clearly pro-Obama, that's not the main issue.

The big problem is that the success of her book hinges on the success of Obama's candidacy.

If he wins, Ifill looks prescient, the book is relevant and it could score lots of attention and big sales. If he loses, the book is irrelevant, or worse.

Thus, it's in Ifill's best interest to see Biden "win" his debate, because that would support an Obama win. Which would be good - financially and otherwise - for the moderator. This is called having a stake in the outcome.

How is that NOT a conflict of interest?

Again, most MSM journalists won't concede this point because they are blinded by their own bias.

[Rockabilly]

If Fox News did not exist, media liberals like Deggans would have to invent it simply to have something to kick around. I agree with hello, Mr. D coughed up Fox as a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the question. Yes, a lot of journos will write books about Obama, but only one is "moderating" the VP debate and will see her book published on Inaugeration Day. And if some journo from the dreaded Fox, say Chris Wallace, wrote a book about the Age of McCain, would his moderating the debate raise a hue & cry? I'm perfectly willing to admit Fox leans right, but that lean appears more dramatic because most of the media leans left.

[drinklime]

malkin is the gum on Ifill's shoe

[Hello Again Hello]

You're changing the subject. We're not talking about Fox News.

You really don't recognize a conflict of interest when you see one?

Sure, other journalists may be writing books about the election, skewed one way or another (liberal or conservative).

But would you want any of those journalists moderating a presidential or vice presidential debate?

The honest answer, I think, is no.

[Eric Deggans]

I think if Ifill had a different reputation and history, this book project might be more of a problem.

But she has a long history of being evenhanded about these issues and this race. And I think there are going to be lots of journalists writing books about the impact of this election.

And as long as we're asking for honesty, how can the folks at Fox News still claim to be fair and balanced given the way they've covered so many issues?

[Rockabilly]

I'm sure Ms. Ifill will be press secretary in the Obama Administration, if not during His First Term, then in the second, or the hird, if that bothersome 22nd Amendment can be repealed.

[Lin Young]

This is an outrageous attack. From what I've read about Gwen Ifill's book, it is an objective look at the black political movement since the 1960's. Hardly a pro-Obama book I would say.

I can't think of a more objective, hard-working, respected journalist than Ifill, and this partisan smear-campaign attack on her credibility is sickening.

Ifill fills her government watchdog role admirably, which is really why the conservative right is attacking, the last thing they want is a watchdog press demanding answers and accountability to the public.

In addition, Ifill has broken a few glass ceilings herself, not the least of which is moderating national vice presidential debates.

This attack on Ifill is an attack on all women of integrity.

[Hello Again Hello]

Come on, Eric. Don't let your bias get in the way of common sense.

Nobody is attacking Ifill. But the ethics of this situation don't pass the smell test.

Any good journalist, serious about journalistic ethics, understands the definition of conflict of interest - it's when you have a stake in the outcome.

In this case, Ifill has a clear financial stake in the outcome of the election.

If Obama wins, then Ifill's book, the title of which includes "The Age of Obama," will attract a lot of attention and generate sales. It's being published ON INAUGURATION DAY, for God's sake.

On the other hand, if Obama loses, then who's going to care about a book celebrating the political success of Obama?

Sure, she has the right credentials for the job. And based on her past performances, there's a good chance that she won't favor one candidate over the other. She'll probably do a fine job.

But, as you should know, the presence of a clear conflict of interest creates multiple issues, and multiple problematic possibilities.

1)She could favor Biden, because of her stake in the success of Obama's candidacy.

2)She could artificially bend over backwards to NOT favor Biden, and inadvertently give Palin an advantage.

Neither outcome is positive, in terms of ensuring a fair debate.

The fact that Ifill failed to disclose that her book was being published, and the date when it was published, speaks poorly of her journalistic ethos.

And the fact that those in charge of the debate didn't object to this clear conflict of interest is kind of scary.

You really don't get why Ifill's conflict of interest presents a problem?

The fact that so many otherwise sensible, ethics-minded journalists are giving her a pass on this obvious conflict of interest is probably the most egregious recent example of liberal bias in the media.

Wouldn't you be raising hell if the moderator for this debate had written a book titled "The Breakthrough: War Heroism and Politics in the Age of McCain"?

Be honest now.