That's not Bidinotto's question; it's mine. He's being much more civilized than I am; I'm still outraged, and I didn't know that behavior of the MSM could still make me this angry.

Here's what Robert actually wrote:

A clear pattern has emerged: ABC's heavy-handed editing is lifting Palin's replies to questions out of context in order to undercut their coherence and substance.

Why do I say that? Because I have now seen the same questions posed by Charlie Gibson in these various broadcasts, and repeatedly, I've seen those questions paired with different fragmentary answers by Palin. Rather than allow her to be heard in her entirety on any given question, ABC yanks a one- or two-sentence snippet as a sound bite, sometimes blatantly cutting off Palin's reply in mid-thought or even mid-sentence, as if that reply represents the essence or entirety of her position. Only by watching all these various ABC interview broadcasts -- which are being scattered over a number of its daily programs in order to boost their ratings -- can you get a fuller, in-context understanding of her responses, which are often far more nuanced than ABC's editing makes them appear.

The only time that interviewer Charlie Gibson and Palin (are shown to) engage in an exchange of any length, it's when Gibson presses Palin on the meaning of "the Bush Doctrine." It is a clear "gotcha" question, intended to make her look like a confused rookie on foreign policy. But, as an ABC analyst just pointed out on "Good Morning America," you could probably have asked that same question to 500 random people at the State or Defense Departments and gotten vacant stares or stammering replies. Palin's full response -- when shown last night on "ABC News" -- turned out to be a solid defense of the doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes in the case of imminent threats. On "Good Morning America" today, however, that answer is deleted, and in its place ABC's editors substitute a vague sentence, obviously one of those that preceded her more definitive statement. The vague sentence gives the impression of evasion and lack of knowledge; "GMA" viewers would never know that Palin had said anything more.

[UPDATE: And she was right to ask Gibson to clarify his question, because there are a number of evolving positions subsumed under what pundits call "the Bush Doctrine." Why didn't Gibson simply ask, "What do you think of the Bush foreign policy?" Because he wanted to set a trap regarding "the Bush Doctrine," knowing that if she showed any puzzlement, she'd look amateurish. It was a "gotcha" question, and everyone knows it.]

Folks, this is dirty pool. And I have a suggestion as to what to do about it.

First, I think you should write ABC News demanding a release and posting of the full transcript of the interview, rather than these out-of-context clips.

Secondly, I believe that the McCain campaign should post, on YouTube or on their website, whatever video or transcript they may have of the ABC interview. The comparison between the full interview and ABC's hatchet-job version will once again demonstrate the blatant bias of the MSM "news" outlets in their treatment of Palin.

The more the mainstream media tips its hand in its (mis)treatment of Palin, the more disgusted the average voter becomes, and the less likely he or she is to believe anything else they say. And the more likely the citizenry becomes to seek out alternative sources of information.

But after mis-quoting Palin to her face, it's a bit rich that ABC is also editing her own answers to make her sound as stupid as possible.

So why was she so reluctant to expose herself to a flagrantly hostile media? Very mysterious.

AllahP on the way Gibson distorted Palin's prayer about the Iraq war.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 12:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.