1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

ABC caught manipulating editing of Palin interview

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ZB9, Sep 13, 2008.

  1. ZB9

    ZB9 New Member

    1,024 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    [IMG]A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website. The sections edited out by ABC News are in bold. The first edit shows Palin responding about meeting with foreign leaders but this was actually in response to a question Gibson asked several questions earlier:
    GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
    PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
    GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
    PALIN: Right.
    GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
    PALIN: Right, right.
    GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
    PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

    Next we see that Palin was not nearly as hostile towards Russia as was presented in the edited interview:
    GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
    PALIN: Sure.
    GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
    The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
    PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
    GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
    PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
    And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
    GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
    PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
    GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
    PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
    We also see from Palin's following remark, which was also edited out, that she is far from some sort of latter day Cold Warrior which the edited interview made her seem to be:
    We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
    We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
    Palin's extended remarks about defending our NATO allies were edited out to make it seem that she was ready to go to war with Russia.
    GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
    PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
    But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to - especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
    We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
    GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
    PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
    And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
    It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
    His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
    That answer presented Palin as a bit too knowledgeable for the purposes of ABC News and was, of course, edited out. Palin's answers about a nuclear Iran were carefully edited to the point where she was even edited out in mid-sentence to make it seem that Palin favored unilateral action against that country:
    GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
    PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
    GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?
    PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.
    GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
    PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
    GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
    PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
    Laughably, a remark by Gibson that indicated he agreed with Palin was edited out:
    PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said - first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
    But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
    That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
    Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
    GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
    Gibson took her point about Lincoln's words but we wouldn't know that by watching the interview since it was left on the cutting room floor. I urge everybody to see just how the unedited version of the first interview compared to what we saw on television by checking out the full transcript. It is a fascinating look into media manipulation via editing.
  2. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,870 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    This is why I roll my eyes when people complain about "Faux News." O'Reilly didn't sandbag Obama like this.
  3. Rampage

    Rampage Benched

    24,117 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    this is just shocking news who would've thought a news channel would do such a thing.:rolleyes:
  4. VietCowboy

    VietCowboy Be Realistic. Demand the Impossible.

    2,915 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    guess this could be an argument for answering questions live...
  5. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,345 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It's funny that they tried to sabotage her and STILL couldn't come up with a true "gotcha" moment.
  6. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Zero journalistic integrity.
    Do they think the american people are that stupid?...some are(we know how they vote),but please,knock it off.
  7. theebs

    theebs Believe!!!!

    22,213 Messages
    1,270 Likes Received
    I didnt watch any of the interview, seems about as uninteresting as it gets.

    But was it edited because of time constraints or is it just the evil liberal media trying to socialize america again?

    Or did I even need to ask that in here?
  8. VietCowboy

    VietCowboy Be Realistic. Demand the Impossible.

    2,915 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I'm sure they could have added an extra day (depending on ratings) if they needed to. It is just the evil liberal media alas.
  9. MetalHead

    MetalHead Benched

    6,031 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Go try that with the teleprompter boy.
  10. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,345 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    It's one thing to edit for length... another to ask a question, edit out her answer, and jump to an answer later on that is only somewhat related to the initial question.
  11. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    While being a pretty strong Palin supporter, I'll have to submit that some amount of editing is required to fit the programing schedule. *Something* has to be cut. The problem is when the editors/producers use that fact to make selective edits that can tilt the viewer's perception of what was said away from what was really said in full context. They could just have easily cut down the run time of their long-running intro and let the actual interview run longer and more complete.
  12. theebs

    theebs Believe!!!!

    22,213 Messages
    1,270 Likes Received

    You would think. I dont even know what day it was on. Actually I dont think in my entire life I have watched five minutes of ABC news.
  13. ZB9

    ZB9 New Member

    1,024 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I agree

    look at the comments on Russia specifically, and it's obvious they were trying in the editing to manipulate what she said. She still came across very well though
  14. theebs

    theebs Believe!!!!

    22,213 Messages
    1,270 Likes Received
    Wow. is that what they did? Seems like that would be pretty sad. Wouldnt they realize that the unedited version would be asked for.

    Seems like they must have a better reason than just being evil liberals. But maybe not.
  15. ZB9

    ZB9 New Member

    1,024 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    they even cut one of her answers MID SENTENCE
  16. theebs

    theebs Believe!!!!

    22,213 Messages
    1,270 Likes Received

    That seems very odd. There has to be some standards.

    I wonder who has the say in the cut room?
  17. Brandon

    Brandon Benched

    928 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I wonder how much that scum bag Barack Obama is paying the media to big up his campaign every chance they get. If Barack makes a mistake its "inexpierence" or "hes tired" if McCain makes a mistake, we get "Hes out of the loop" "He is a Bush clone"

    Dispicable.
  18. theebs

    theebs Believe!!!!

    22,213 Messages
    1,270 Likes Received

    Imgaine the response if someone called Sarah palin a scumbag?

    That would be entertaining.
  19. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,870 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Partisan editing aside, she did okay. The most important thing is that she held her own for the most part and didn't embarrass herself or McCain. However, she has a long way to go. I hope she's a quick study.

    This is a pretty honest review from a conservative:

    Palin’s Performance—Fine, But… [Rich Lowry, NRO]

    My take (and I didn't see the bits that aired on 20/20 or Nightline last night, although I read the transcript) was that she survived. That's all she had to do. Politically, everyone was grading her on a pass/fail, and she passed. No gaffes, not that much to fuel damaging follow-on conversation. She's likable even when she's at her least authoritative. Most people, I believe, are rooting for her, and she was helped in the post-game by the incredible scorn directed at her by Charlie Gibson. But this was a merely adequate performance. The foreign-policy session was a white-knuckle affair. She barely got through it and showed no knowledge more than an inch deep. What she did demonstrate was amazing self-possession. She somehow bluffed her way through the Bush doctrine question. Gibson apparently didn't want to go into full "gotcha" territory by asking flat-out if she knew what it is. And then he muddled things further with his dubious definition of it, so she was never truly nailed and there was enough ambiguity there for conservatives to defend her. The fact still remains that she very likely didn't know any of the possible definitions of the Bush doctrine. I can't imagine if Obama had picked Gov. Tim Kaine and he had had a similar moment, conservatives would have rushed to say that the Bush doctrine is just too amorphous and complicated for him to know anything about it. Palin seemed weak on economic and budgetary policy too, talking in the vaguest generalities. She was much better, and positively good, on the social issues—which are dear to her and she's thought about—and anything having to do with her personally or with her record in Alaska. She was magnificent on the Iraq-prayer question. This tends to suggest she'll be as strong on the national issues, once she's truly conversant with them. I hope she got up from the foreign policy session and said to her aides, "Dammit. That wasn't good enough and I'm not letting it happen again. I'm not going to allow myself to be so under-prepared for another high-profile interview again." Of course, she has a tremendous amount of material to master in a short period of time. What she has to do is the equivalent of Charlie Gibson or any of the rest of us having to answer questions about pipeline policy in Alaska on a moment's notice. I understand how we all want to be protective of her—I feel the same impulse—but let's not be patronizing. I believe the truly pro-Palin position is to think she can, should, and will do better than this.
  20. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    And the ratings would again be tremendous. So, you are correct. You apparently tried for sarcasm and accidentally pronounced the truth.

    :)

Share This Page