Tare wrote:
You know what assuming does, doncha gbaji? I can't vote in your election.
So you're definitely not in the "99% of the voting public" group then. ;)
Quote:
She avoided answering questions without the finesse of crafty redirection and came across, in my opinion, as flummoxed and insubstantial. Again, my opinion only, but I would say the interview process did precisely the job it should have here. Out-of-context clips almost work in Palin's favor. The whole interview was almost painful.
Actually, the painful bit for me was how blatant Gibson was about digging for specific responses he wanted to hear. It's rare to see an interview where the interviewer repeats the exact same question 8 or 10 times because he clearly didn't get the answer he wanted, but doesn't seem interested in challenging or questioning the answer that was given.
You're correct that it's subjective. If you were inclined against Palin you'd see that as Palin giving such a bad answer that Gibson didn't even bother to acknowledge it but just repeated the question again to give her another chance. If you were inclined towards Palin, you saw him being so focused on "getting her" that he really wasn't listening to what she said at all. He wasn't responding to what she said and then adjusting his line of questioning to it, but just ignoring any answer from her that didn't fit what he thought the answer should be (or what he wanted it to be).
That's how I saw it though. So did the two other people watching it with me at the time. Of course, they're both conservatives too, so go figure!
I will certainly grant that she didn't redirect the questions with as much skill as she should have. But that's not really about skill at being in front of a camera and general public speaking. There's a very specific methodology used by Washington reporters that is unlike anything you'll see in any other field of journalism. As I suggested earlier, the focus tends to be on soundbites, not the substance of the interview itself.
Quote:
Gbaji, it matters not where the "word" comes from - only that the result is that MORE people probably took the time to watch the interview than maybe would have without the hype. I cited myself as an example because I wouldn't have bothered had I not heard on the radio, the internet and newspaper that Palin struggled to answer Gibson's questions on quite a few occasions.
Possibly. But that still doesn't really mean much. You said you wouldn't have bothered otherwise. Um... How many political interviews have you ever seen before? Can you honestly say you're comparing her performance in that format to other politicians? Or are you using some other form of measuring stick here?
I guess what I'm getting at is that the process you're describing is somewhat self fulfilling. You hear she did poorly, so you watch the interview and then think she did poorly. If you'd heard she did very well but Gibson was an idiot, you'd have seen a very different performance, right? So people's perception of the interview itself is going to vary based on the mindset they approach it from. So those on the right, who may have heard about it on some conservative talk show, will not see the same thing you saw. I can't say what radio station you listen to or what newspaper you read, but can I guess that it's not the same sources that joe random mainstream US voter is going to hear or read?
Most people aren't that tuned in to politics. They'll see the clips from the interview after the fact. And in those clips, they'll edit out the fact that Gibson asks the same question over and over, leaving one question and one answer for each topic essentially (with maybe a followup her and there). Once you trim the interview in that way it doesn't look at all like she's unsure or unsteady. What appears as dogmatic recitation of a party line in the full interview looks like a smart and ready answer to each question. And *that's* what most US voters are going to see out of this interview.