Gwen Ifill PBS journalist and the moderator for tonight’s vice presidential debate is the latest topic of political controversy. Even though it’s been out since at least August that she’s writing a book yesterday the day before the VP debate it became an issue. The book titled, “”The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama” is about politics in the post civil rights era and is due to be released on the day our next President takes office. Because of this some are saying she has a vested interest in Barack Obama winning. Check this out from huffington post:
Although Malkin raised the topic of Ifill’s impartiality the day before the debate, the PBS journalist said that Time magazine noted she was writing a book in August, and that it has been available for pre-sale on Amazon.com. The book also is mentioned in a Sept. 4 interview she gave the Washington Post.
Ifill questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.
“Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?” said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, “I don’t know what it is. I find it curious.”
John McCain has noted that he doesn’t have a problem with Ifill moderating and that he believes she is a true professional.
Here’s video of her talking about the book:
The Breakthrough: Gwen Ifill – Watch the best video clips here
BMWK do you think this is a major conflict of interest? Do you think this works in the Republican’s favor because now she’ll be bending over backwards to show she’s not partial to the Dems? Let us know what’s on your mind.
A. Grey says
This coming to light really taints the objectivity of this event. Either way it’s a lose/lose situation because if Biden comes out looking good at the debate, then it will reflect that Gwen was looking out for her monetary interest (since her book on the Age of Obama is scheduled to be released on inauguration day). On the other hand, if Palin comes out looking good, maybe she’s trying too hard in the other direction.
The only decision that makes sense is to replace her with another moderator so there isn’t a misunderstanding about a conflict of interest. She’s a fantastic journalist, but this isn’t the event for her this time around.
tina says
I would be more concerned and want her replaced if she were moderating a debate between Obama and McCain. But in this case I don’t think it really matters. It wasn’t even an issue til McCain’s ratings in the polls started a freefall and conservatives started having second thoughts about Palin. It’s only an issue because McCain’s camp is trying its best to shield Palin from anything that could possibly give Tina Fey more material for the next SNL.
tinas last blog post..I’m Fine When I’m Asleep.
Anna says
I did not want to comment on this and seem biased. Gwen has been a political person for as long as I can remember. I do remember her on “Meet The Press” and do know that she has a PBS show. I love PBS. I think she was fair and did what I knew she would do. Her book being released on election day. No big deal to me. She was the Mc and did her job in a non favortism way. For me I would not want to see Elisabet Hasselback from “The View” MC(ing) a republican debate. Her questions would have been too careful and cheesy. “How much do you dis like Obama and his wife Michelle and by the way what did you cook for dinner. When I found out Gwen was going to be the Mc I had no problem with it. With age does come maturity and seperation with fairness.
Samuel Brown says
First, I would like to applaud President Obama for his bold initiatives and efforts toward a cost effective national health care policy with a public option. As a social worker, I am aware of thousands of people confronting high cost of medical insurance. I have witnessed first hand, seniors cutting back on food purchases while struggling to buy needed medications. For this reason, among others, I whole heartedly endorse a single-payer health care program for America. It would be good for our economy, as well as for all Americans. The current health care system may appear to be functioning well if you already have quality health insurance and can afford it, but for over 47 million Americans there is a firm need for affordable quality heath care services that is fair for all Americans. What does it say about a country that allow large numbers of its citizenry to suffer or die due to their inability to pay for the high cost of health insurance. Personally, I am in favor of comprehensive health care reform, that will insure all Americans. Health care must become more accessible, affordable, and promote prevention as the best cure. Based on my professional social work experience, reading and research, it appears that a national health care program would cost the same amount of money to manage that is spent on current health care costs, without increasing taxes or taxing employee benefits. Profit motive for pharmaceutical companies, HMO’s, and other big insurance companies from health care must be deleted from a quality health care policy. As long as profit take priority over quality health care, there will always be those less fortunate who can ill afford the rising cost of health care. A quality health care program should be affordable and accessible to every American. No one should have their quality of life denied because of an inability to pay, lack of access to medically necessary health care treatment, including hospitalization, inpatient and outpatient care, medications, vision care, dental care, as well as other required medical care to maintain good health and prevent chronic illnesses. I support the presidents proposal for national health care with a public option as an alternative to a single-payer program. I urge all members of congress and the senate to also endorse the presidents plan. If members of the House and Senate believes in the current health care system that provides their health coverage, why not support a national health care plan equal to their publicly financed health care? If medicaid and medicare is working, why not extend it to all Americans? Since our representatives salaries are received from taxpayers funds, they are in fact receiving free health care. If free health care works for them, why would they oppose the same health care for their constituents? If our representatives believe that in America, we should have the best of everything, why would any one of them reject a health proposal to provide quality health care for all Americans? Our representatives, who have the responsibility and an opportunity to pass a national health care program that is affordable and fair, must decide whether they are going to stand on the side of the big insurance companies (profit motive) or stand up for the American people.