Charles Gibson Does His Duty

Much has been made of the media during this campaign season. During any election since the beginning of this nation, the fourth estate has had the ability to shape the debate and even the public perception. At times, they have been complicit in the abuses of the government or have uncovered those abuses and brought down Presidents. The modern news media, though, - running 24 hours a day on the radio, television, internet, and in print; under greater economic pressure than ever to provide returns in viewership and advertising revenue; appealing to a public with lives moving at a faster pace and with shorter attention spans - has often followed stories on a whim of drama rather than importance. During the primaries, the Democrats dominated news coverage because that’s where the exciting horse race was (and no, I’m not calling Barack or Hillary horses, Mr. McCain). Meanwhile, John McCain was given a pass by the media because he had previously been so good to them and because of his compelling story as a war hero and self-declared maverick. Then, when it became clear that he did not wish to run on issues and wanted to run on attacks, the media stopped covering him with such unflinching favor. That’s when John McCain declared war on the media. He claimed that they were “in love” with Senator Obama, and were biased to support him, even at a time when the majority of coverage was more favorable to John McCain.

Every time John McCain leveled an attack on Barack Obama, the media readily reported it, giving his unfounded claims equal weight as Barack Obama’s defense. Still, this was not enough for John McCain. He claimed bias when network news anchors followed Barack Obama around the world while lesser known journalists went with him to a grocery store and German restaurant here in the states. He assumed the bias was towards the candidate, and not towards the fact that one story was interesting and important, and one was boring and mundane. After all this, though, hardly a journalist called him on his vicious attacks, his refusal to talk about issues, or his shameless use of his war record as a deflection to any criticism.
John McCain, though, was not appeased.

So, when he hastily chose his running mate, he expected the media to swoon and give him enough coverage to steal the thunder of Barack Obama’s convention speech. To his horror, the media did what it is meant to do: investigate. They began reporting on Sarah Palin’s record, on her political views, on he lack of experience, and not (as he had hoped) merely on the fact that she was a young and conservative woman. This was the final straw to McCain, and he blamed the media. It was the media’s fault that he didn’t vet his candidate. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin had so often contradicted her previous statements. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy was reported on after Sarah Palin reported it in a press release and then dragged her daughter and fiance on the campaign trail. Yes, this would be the end of the line for the media.

Last Sunday when John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all appeared on the Sunday political shows, Sarah Palin stayed home. They were not going to serve her up for the biased media to attack. Heck, John McCain would have stayed home if not for the fact that he’s trying to become President and the President occasionally has to come out of hiding. This week, though, they thought it might be safe to bring Sarah Palin out and place her in the soft embrace of Charles Gibson. After all the talk from the McCain camp about wanting to control the story, it seemed obvious to everyone that this would not be an in depth discovery. This would be the very model of modern network puff piece. At even the hint of a bold question, the interview would be ended, and ABC would lose it’s access and the ratings that come with it. People began to talk fancifully of the questions they would like to ask, with no belief that any of those questions ever would be.

Charles Gibson, though, is a greater journalist than any of us dared give him credit. As Sarah Palin repeatedly refered to him as “Charlie,” in either an attempt to be folksy, unawareness of the formal nature of such an interview, or in contempt for him and his educated ilk, Charles Gibson calmly and respectfully asked her the serious questions that none of us thought he would.

He began by mentioning that even John McCain could only name two credentials that Sarah Palin had as experience for the Vice Presidency; that she had been commander-and-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which when used for military or foreign service becomes nationalized so she is no longer in charge of them) and that Alaska was relatively close to Russia (and I would suppose Canada, so I don’t know why John McCain never brings that up.) Her response? That her real foreign policy credential is that Alaska has a lot of oil, and energy independence is one of our greatest foreign policy goals. She even stated that 20 percent of our energy comes from Alaska, though I’ll assume she just meant 20 percent of our oil since most of our actual energy comes from coal which comes mostly from the lower 48. What she didn’t seem to understand was that this means that 80 percent of our oil is coming from places other than Alaska, and a lot of those places are overseas, and that means that as long as we depend on oil for energy, we will be unable to meet our own demands through domestic drilling. Actual energy independence would require us a.) conserving more energy, b.) developing new, domestic sources of energy, and c.) developing alternative energy. We can drill all we want, but we’re never going to find all of the oil we need here, and even if we do, we will run out, and then we’ll be stuck again. Real energy independence comes from renewable energy that can be created here by Americans, such as with wind farms, like the ones she opposed in Alaska because it would have cut into demand for Alaska’s oil.

He asked her if she’d ever met a foreign head of state. At first, she said yes, because she’d met people from foreign nations who’d come to discuss issues of trade, for oil. When Charles Gibson prodded her on whether she’d ever met a head of state, and not just a trade representative, that’s when she became defensive. She said that people were sick of the “Washington establishment” with their “fat resumes” who “meet heads of state” because they are part of “closed door, good-old-boy network that has been the Washington elite.” So, let me get this straight… at first she claimed she had met heads of state, showing no sign that she thought something like that was distasteful or elitist. Then, when Charles Gibson called her out on this untruth, she turned it into a negative saying that she didn’t want to meet heads of state because people were sick of those “Washington elite” who spend decades working in the government and meeting with foreign leaders and building up all sorts of experience. That’s not what we want in our next President. We want someone with even less experience than George W. Bush had (please note irony).

Charles Gibson also used one of those dirty, liberal media tricks… telling a person what they’ve already said. Here’s the exchange in question:

GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

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.

Well, actually, she did presume because she said the soldiers were on a task from God, which means she presumed it was a task of which God would approve. Rather than answer the question, she tried to make Mr. Gibson out to be the one who was manipulating words. She didn’t want to own up to what she’d said, or even explain it if she actually believed it. She could have easily said “Yes, our boys are doing God’s work in spreading Democracy and saving lives, but no this is not a holy war.” Look, I’m not running for Vice President and yet somehow I was able to come up with an answer that is honest, pleasing to both sides, and doesn’t make me look like a liar.

When asked about the United States getting involved in a conflict between Russia and Georgia, she said we would have to keep an eye on Russia because they attacked Georgia “unprovoked”. ; Charles Gibson, good journalist that he is, questioned this because, no matter what your view on Russia’s intent and the validity of what they did, no one can possibly think that it was completely unprovoked given the fact Georgia had first mobilized their military in South Ossetia, an area with many ethnic Russians and in which Russian peacekeepers were stationed.

Following this, Sarah Palin stated that we have to avoid another Cold War, which according to her assessment was “won” by Ronald Reagan “without a shot fired”. She also thought that Ukraine and Georgia should be added to NATO, and when Charles Gibson asked her if she thought we would then have to enter a war with Russia if they attacked Georgia again, she said:

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.

She also suggest diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions. Perhaps she’s confused by the “war” part of “Cold War,” but right there, she described the Cold War. It was us, the United States, placing sanctions on Russia, and using smaller, democratic nations to fight for control of Eastern Europe. That rationale of what “the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries” is precisely what led to our Cold War conflicts, the fear of the domino effect of democracies being attacked.

Then, when asked if she, like John McCain, felt we would have to attack a nuclear Iran, she suggested sanctions and diplomatic pressure. When Charles Gibson pointed out that those are the things we have done and they haven’t worked, she said we “wouldn’t stand for it.”

PALIN: 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.

I hope I’m not the first to say it, but the word “gee” has no place in any discussion of nuclear proliferation. Also, she just said that we shouldn’t be asking ourselves “what can we do about it?” if Iran gets nuclear weapons, which it is already in the process of developing. So, we shouldn’t back down, but we also shouldn’t do anything or consider doing anything? Hmm...gee, that’s real leadership. When she wouldn’t say what she would do, Charles Gibson asked what we should do if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. She said “we cannot second guess what Israel has to do to defend itself.” When he asked if this meant we’d support it, she repeated the sentiment. When he asked for clarification, she repeated it again. So, we shouldn’t question it, and because we can’t question it, apparently we wouldn’t have an opinion on it.

He ended by asking Sarah Palin her opinion of the “Bush Doctrine.” First, she didn’t know what it was, despite the fact that it’s been at the center of our foreign policy for the 6 years since he declared it. Then, she thought he just meant “Bush’s world view,” apparently unfamiliar with the historical use of the world “Doctrine” as it involves Presidents and foreign policy. When Charles Gibson stated it, flat-out, that it referred to our right to preemptively invade sovereign nations if we felt our national security was threatened, she swam into a sea of non-answers about how we had to protect ourselves and if we had intelligence and about terrorists hell-bent on destroying America and it’s allies. Here is my favorite part of the evening:

GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?

She ended with another non-answer about leaving all options on the table, without a hint of irony since she thinks we should invade any countries we want if we feel threatened, but that Russia shouldn’t invade the country right next to it when it feels threatened by actual troops, not terrorists but troops, on its border. So, once again Sarah Palin, you have lowered my opinion of you. At this point, you’re going to need a shovel to get any lower.

But, Charles Gibson, you have proven yourself a true journalist in my eyes. You didn’t waver, you didn’t cave, you didn’t attack or distort. You did what journalists do: ask questions. You stuck to the facts and you looked for answers and I look forward to seeing you do it again tomorrow unless Sarah Palin’s handlers figure out a way to sneak her out the back tonight.