A lot of people felt Sarah Palin got some pretty rough treatment at the hands of Charlie Gibson during her interview on ABC. So just how rough is it? Well, let’s compare the questions Gibson asked Palin with the questions Gibson asked Obama as compiled by The Anchoress.
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
So Obama gets “how does it feel to win” and “what did you think of Hillary’s speech.” Palin gets questions about the territorial integrity of Georgia.
Fair? Balanced? Objective? Not even a little bit.
Meanwhile, at Newsbusters they have the portions of Palin’s interview with Gibson that ABC edited out of its broadcast:
A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context.
Days after Palin was selected as McCain’s running the media was carping (unfairly given that she’d just gotten into the race) about Palin not being available for interviews. Given how Palin got treated by ABC, I think the more pertinent question is why she’s bothering to talk to reporters at all.