What about Tom Brokaw impartiality as a moderator vs VP moderator?

[curious one]

Can we ask about Tom Brokaw who is biased toward McLame? Who masterminded removal of KO from anchoring debate events? The silence is deafening!

[anonymous171]

1. He's not black though.

[EffieBlack]

4. True dat!

[EffieBlack]

2. He's written several books about veterans - anyone worried that he'll be biased toward McCain?

Oh, wait a minute. He's white.

Never mind.

[saracat]

6. BS.

[anonymous171]

7. Ifil wrote a book about black politicians. It wasn't a pro-Obama book.

So by RWer logic, Brokaw must be in the tank for McSame since he has written books about veterans.

[FrenchieCat]

3. He wrote a book on the GREATEST GENERATION....

So he's a real Amerikun.

[saracat]

8. And it actually was the "greatest generation" . Too bad some can't appreciate it.

I have a great deal of respect for history and the accomplishments of those that went before unlike some who think they were born knowing everything and everything new is better.,

[EffieBlack]

13. You can't possibly be serious

No one questioned the accomplishments of the "greatest generation." But if you believe that writing a book about black politicians means that one is biased toward one black politician who is running for president, then it's hard to justify why writing a book about veterans does not make one biased toward on veteran running for president.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether one appreciates the accomplishments of veterans, so don't even try to go there.

[saracat]

14. Who said that? Not me.

[EffieBlack]

21. I guess your response of "BS" to my point made me think you felt this way

Maybe I'm wrong. Please elaborate. Do you think that Gwen Ifill's book suggests that she is biased toward Obama?

[saracat]

26. Her book title suggests it.

The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Calling this the "Age of Obama" clearly indicates to me that she thinks he's very significant, perhaps even "transformational". And that may imdeed be so but it isn't neutral. She also has the book release timed to the Inaugeration.

[EffieBlack]

28. You don't have to be "in the tank" with Obama to know that he is a significant political figure

Hell, I know that Ronald Reagan was "transformational." That doesn't mean I wanted him to be president.

I'm sorry, but I think your argument just doesn't hold water. Recognizing that a politician is significant does not mean that one is biased.

I don't believe that you're necessarily doing this, but I think that much of the hand-wringing about Gwen Ifill is purely about race - it's the dog whistle being blown to alert the right people that a black journalist can't be trusted to objectively moderate a political debate that tangentially involves a black politician. The underlying assumption is that black people are biased toward one another and therefore any discussion that any of us have about other black people cannot be objective and is therefore suspect.

Gwen Ifill has every right to write a book analyzing black politicians. Barack Obama is a black politician, a seminal one, so naturally he'd be in the book. Under your argument, NO journalist could discuss or write about Barack Obama and still be a fair moderator in a debate. Yet the white moderators who have been doing these debates have written about, talked about, analyzed Barack Obama and race in this campaign and have never been accused of bias as a result of this. Tom Brokaw has written a book about veterans, yet no one is saying he can't fairly moderate a debate involving a veteran.

It's bullshit, plain and simple, and I think it's a shame that you're helping to advance their cause, even if you're doing it unwittingly.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

32. He's the first AA nominee of a major party.

How is that NOT significant?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

31. "Too bad some can't appreciate it."

[saracat]

15. Dupe

[saracat]

16. Dupe

[saracat]

17. Who said that? Not me.

[curious one]

18. I personally appreciate neutrality. Tom Brokaw does not hide his bias and he

displays it any chance he gets.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I have no problem with the Greatest Generation.......

But it appears that since he wrote that book, he has elevated himself over every generation including that one.

[saracat]

5. Oh please. KO is a partisan who doesn't even disguise his bias. This is wrong

no matter who would be doing it. KO was removed because he isn't the least bit impartial and isn't a "real" journalist. He is just a sports guy with an attitude.

[curious one]

9. KO is one in a sea of million RW media.

[saracat]

11. Baloney. KO is a partisan hack. He is the BillO of the left.

[City Lights]

19. Oh the drama! nt

[BlooInBloo]

10. No. According to white folks, white folks are normal. It's only black folks who are sketchy.

[EffieBlack]

20. Exactly

Case in point: the sideways glances that black voters get for voting for Obama in large numbers - it is assumed that because blacks are voting for Obama in larger percentages than whites, the black vote numbers are suspect.

Whenever anyone asks me, "Why are so many blacks voting for Obama?" I answer: "That's the wrong question. The RIGHT question is 'Why aren't more WHITE people voting for Obama?'"

[curious one]

23. No, it's all the minorities who are sketchy if you examine their logic.

[BlooInBloo]

24. Well sure. I was only talking about the one that was relevant in this context.

[bobd0]

12. I received an email regarding Brokaw's recent biased remarks on Meet the Press

Here it is, in part:

Sunday on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw moderated a debate between McCain strategist Steve Schmidt and Obama strategist David Axelrod on topics ranging from Iraq to the Wall Street bailout. At the end, Tom Brokaw did something strange. He opted to give himself the last word and told the audience:


"In fairness to everybody here, I'm just going to end on one note. And that is that we continue to poll on who's best equipped to be Commander in Chief, and John McCain continues to lead in that category despite the criticism from Barack Obama by a factor of 53 to 42 percent in our latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Gentlemen, thank you very much."

We checked, and the latest NBC poll actually has no question about Commander in Chief.2 We contacted NBC about this, and it turns out Brokaw was referring to a poll taken weeks ago—right after the Republican convention and well before Friday's big national security debate. And in each of NBC's last two polls, Americans chose Obama over McCain.

Can you email Tom Brokaw today? Let him know that this election is very close, and we need journalists to be responsible. Giving himself the last word in the debate, and citing an outdated poll number as if it was current, was a mistake. As a responsible journalist, he should apologize for both.


Here's where to contact him:
Tom Brokaw, Meet The Press feedback form: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/

Brokaw should recuse himself.

[curious one]

25. Exactly!

[Me.]

27. Please Sign The Petition

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7265419

[No Elephants]

29. He knows McCain socially, for pity sakes. And he was misleading about polls on the air with

Axelrod. Gwen Ifill has never done anything like that.

[Supersedeas]

30. shhhh.....Tom is a very sensative older white gentleman

[gauguin57]

33. Tom Brokaw is not biased toward McCain.

Sorry ... but I believe Tom is just "old school" -- he wants to project some semblance of
objectivity/balance for the network he's worked with for decades.

I read the "McCain liaison" story, and I don't see that "liaison between NBC and McCain" is what everyone seems to be assuming it is. I think this actually puts NBC high above Fox in terms of integrity ... NBC (through Brokaw) is willing to say that they've got these liberal commentators pointing out long lists of McCain & Palin foibles night after night (which I love -- don't get me wrong!), but that NBC is willing to make an effort to be objective -- not siding with either camp -- for the debates. Fox just wants to bury the Democratic party, and they make no apologies for it.

I'm glad Keith not anchoring the election coverage (and Keith said on Letterman that he's glad, too ... he'd rather just be a commentator -- that way he can say what he likes, and not be constrained by having to force himself to try to be "balanced" as an anchor). Not sure about Chris ... he's just kind of all over the place ... his frequent histrionics don't mesh well with anchoring. He's better as a commentator, too.

I've always admired Tom because he didn't let his politics show in his job as anchor. That's why I watched him faithfully for many years. I know he leans Democrat in "real" life -- hangs with Democrats, big environmentalist, owns property with Robert Rubin, was offered a job in the Clinton administration, and was being touted as a Democratic presidential candidate (and possible Kerry running mate) by some influential Hollywood lefties a few years back.

On Meet the Press, he does his job. While everyone on DU is bitching about him, the right wing is bitching about what a lefty he is. I read it all the time. Tom says that's how he knows he's doing his job right -- BOTH sides are bitching about him.

I don't think "McCain is his buddy" -- I think he's just trying to make sure NBC is viewed as an objective news source, despite MSNBC's nightly dose of Keith, Rachel and Chris.

And, especially as a former journalist, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of EITHER side petitioning to get a long-established newsperson (Brokaw or Ifil) pulled off a debate. That just shows "we want a liberal" or "we want a conservative" or "we want our guy" to moderate the debate, and we won't accept anything other than OUR GUY.

I'd lose all respect for the debate process if the Debate Commission caved to such demands.