Charlie Gibson, you blew it with Sarah Palin

Have you watched the various bits and pieces of the highly anticipated First Interview(s) of Sarah Palin? Have you found it as annoying as I have?

I’ve got two fundamental objections to how it was done. Let’s take presentation first. Why weren’t we just given an hour’s worth of deep-digging interview? I have not enjoyed being fed varied chopped-up packages in multiple time-slots over the last couple of days.

Each of the shows teased us to watch other segments where recycled and strangely edited versions of the same questions and answers were presented. ABC was so much more interested in milking this opportunity (their ratings shot up) than pushing Palin to actually say something beyond her memorized, spoon-fed sound bites.

Here’s my other peeve: Why did Charlie Gibson decide to spend two days strolling around Wasilla with Palin?  Am I the only one who suspects that she charms the pants off him? Not literally, but virtually. Or was it his excitement at being the Chosen One to do madam’s First Interview(s)? For whatever reason, Gibson, the professional, seemed inept; Palin the newcomer controlled her very first national interview. Jeeez.

Visiting her high school, joking gently together about Hillary Clinton and smiling fondly into each other’s eyes – sometimes I felt I was imposing on their private strolls by watching. On certain questions he would push a bit and she would just divert the conversation or repeat whatever line she had been coached to say until he gave up.

Case in point: Instead of asking her for her position on gay marriage or on anti-discrimination legislation, he asks her a ridiculous trick question. Do you think homosexuality is genetic or learned? (There is no agreement on this issue among researchers or among queers, but some heterosexuals have gotten the goofy idea that “biology” is the right answer. Frankly, biology is rarely the right answer.) Dumb question deserves a dumb answer. Palin replies that she doesn’t judge people by whether or not they think it’s genetic or learned. Huh? Does that mean she’s for equality for all researchers? But what about gay people? They’re still sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting for a real question and real answer.

Gibson followed up on nothing. On the occasions where Palin actually did give an answer, that seemed like more than enough for him. He didn’t analyze, didn’t dig deeper, didn’t ask her for an explanation, even when she clearly didn’t know what she was talking about. Like Social Security or Medicaid (a joint state/fed program she should know about).

Where was this journalists’ journalism? This is a man who showed during the primary debates that he cares more about whether someone wears a flag pin than their position on the economy. This is a man who would rather sweetly suggest a basketball match between Palin and Obama, than ask her why she made rape victims pay for their own rape kits in Wasilla.

Palin was not her usual self, having just an edge of caution as she stiffly dug out the lines she had been coached on. Sometimes she was like a person speaking a foreign language phonetically, as she repeated things by rote (about foreign policy, for example) – things she obviously knew nothing about before recent closed-door sessions with advisors.

Ever since she came into our lives, I feel like I’m in a monogamous relationship with Sarah Palin. Well, unrequited monogamy. She’s everywhere I go – the People Magazines at the supermarket, all my screens (computer & tv), the radio, my conversations, my blog. Whew. I guess I ought to keep this quiet. Obviously I don’t want to get up Charlie Gibson’s nose. He might ask me a question and then not press for a clear answer.

Oh Charlie. You blew it.

If the interview left you wishing for something really smart, check out this excellent article from AlterNet.org’s executive editor Don Hazen. “Has Sarah Palin Motivated the Very Voters That Obama Needs to Win?” is the first analysis I’ve seen looking at political differences between single and married women. A fresh, important take on the elections.

Comments

[Gema Gray]

Frankly, I'm done with Palin-tol-ogy (to borrow the cover headline from Newsweek).It's sucking the air out of all the media coverage and no-one is talking about the issues.

Chatting with my husband, who is as apolitical an animal as you'll find, he gave me this analysis (I'm paraphrasing): "It doesn't matter what they say about he issues. They can change what they say anyway. And even if they're sincere, they might not *be able* to achieve their goals. So, it comes down to the President's character. You watch the campaign decisions to see how he makes decisions. Choosing Palin was a brilliant strategic move. It was bold and showed McCain is unafraid to be different. I haven't heard of Biden either, so he and Palin cancel each other out. Obama made the safe choice, McCain made the bold choice, and he's more experienced. He's my man!"

How many more thousands of people out there don't follow politics and are therefore unaware of Biden's expertise? How many more disregard the talk about the issues and vote on character alone?

I too was a little disappointed in the safe choice made by Obama. Hillary would have been the "right" choice, the true choice for "change". Now, Palin is claiming the "change" mantra - correctly or incorrectly - and we're in a real dog-fight. If Obama loses this election (God help us!), we may look back at the VP choices as a real turning point.

The debates are going to be crucial.

[Anita]

After Charles Gibson moderated the debate between Clinton and Obama during the primaries, where he was so concerned about an increase in his capital gains tax, thereby ignoring the issues which matter most to Americans, I wrote him off as a journalist. He has his own agenda, and this is most likely why they chose him to do this interview with Palin. The powers that be knew that he would not pursue the tough questions.