Part of the issue, too, is which news sources are the ones that are in your home. We don't get Fox News here as part of our regular cable package, for example, but we get ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN as well as the Canadian channels.
I've stopped watching CNN as a result of the primaries - their coverage was so biased , and as well, I've grown tired of the way they don't discuss anything but shout "sound bites" at each other.
Two of the things I noticed about the GIbson-Palin interview:
1. The questions were more specific, less unctuous, than what I'd seen in interviews with Obama during the late spring and summer.
2. Gibson didn't give her a pass when she tried to answer vaguely or avoid the question (which is what all politicians do. Survival skill
) Gibson asked a couple of follow up questions, however. (as all interviewers should in that situation)
btw, I've noticed that Obama uses the debater's trick of defining the question, rather than answering the question. What always surprises me is that the interview doesn't then do a follow-up question.
So it was at least good to see Gibson finally doing an interview that pressed for specifics and used follow-up questions. Hopefully we'll see that in more interviews now.
Back to the Gibson interview - what did people make of his "hubris" question? Has any other candidate been asked directly if his/her running wasn't an act of hubris? I know some newpspapers , both American and Europena, used the term in connection with Obama's trip to Europe. Anyway, what did you make of Gibson's asking Palin the "hubris" question?
also, thanks for starting this thread, Pam. That the interview was edited was "news" to me
c.
