As a recently self-proclaimed psychic journalist, I will guess the outcome of Thursday night’s vice presidential debate, which will air shortly after I write this article.
So if you missed the debate Thursday, let me fill you in with my supernatural powers so you don’t have to search for it on YouTube. Sarah Palin lost big time and doesn’t know anything about the world.
That is my expectation. I must admit I am not solely relying on my own psychic powers but also on extensive research of past events. My research, based on interviews conducted by Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, has yielded interesting findings.
Palin has no ability to construct sentences, she can’t read newspapers, she thinks the the far-eastern region of Siberia cares about Alaska and she can’t name more than one Supreme Court case she disagrees with, which is surprising considering that conservatives usually don’t have a hard time disagreeing with the Supreme Court. Furthermore, Palin has been extremely slow on giving an opinion about the most important event in the past several years – the crisis on Wall Street.
These reasons are why it doesn’t matter that PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill was chosen to moderate the vice presidential debate despite her up-coming book titled “Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama.”
Conservatives, namely those on WorldNetDaily.com, have launched accusations of Ifill being a strong supporter of Barack Obama and therefore unqualified for moderating the debate. The controversy centers on the question of Ifill’s lack of neutrality and potential economic benefits an elected Obama may have for her and her publishers.
Pundits like Brit Hume, Greta Van Susteren and Joe Scarborough have also questioned Ifill’s role as moderator. Syndicated conservative columnist Michelle Malkin accused Ifill of not being “nonpartisan” enough, according to The New York Times.
This is ridiculous. Out of all the injustices that have been committed by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which selected Ifill, with respect to the suppression of third-party and independent voices, complaints about Ifill seem hypocritical. As far as I’m concerned, she is as qualified as most other journalists to moderate the debate.
First, the question of potential economic interests seems a little insignificant to me. The book covers several black politicians, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, “who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s,” according to Amazon.com. The book is not solely about Obama. Also, Obama is going to be a famous figure in black history even if not elected in November. Will an Obama-Biden victory help book sales? Probably so. However, it’s a stretch to say Ifill is motivated by such blatant economic interests. She started writing the book more than a year ago, before Obama was even close to being nominated. Ifill has spoken about the book repeatedly for over a year.
Secondly, Ifill’s book is not related to her ability to remain neutral while moderating the vice presidential debate. Just because journalists make editorial comments on an issue doesn’t mean journalists can’t remain dispassionate when fulfilling objective roles. Everyone has opinions. Walter Cronkite even had opinions. Furthermore, her book does not sound like it is advancing a liberal cause. It’s about civil rights and politics.
As I hit upon in my last article, nonpartisanship doesn’t really exist in America. True accustations of partisanship should be directed at the Commission on Presidential Debates, not individual journalists doing what they do.
Matt Watson is the opinion editor of The Reflector. He can be contacted at [email protected].