Against my better judgement I'm going to respond to this because of the "news" site you cite.
She's writing a book about Black Politicians. The title is Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. The publishers gave this about the book. (The publishes are there to hype the book)
In THE BREAKTHROUGH, veteran journalist Gwen Ifill surveys the American political landscape, shedding new light on the impact of Barack Obama’s stunning presidential campaign and introducing the emerging young African American politicians forging a bold new path to political power.
Ifill argues that the Black political structure formed during the Civil Rights movement is giving way to a generation of men and women who are the direct beneficiaries of the struggles of the 1960s. She offers incisive, detailed profiles of such prominent leaders as Newark Mayor Cory Booker, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and U.S. Congressman Artur Davis of Alabama, and also covers up-and-coming figures from across the nation. Drawing on interviews with power brokers like Senator Obama, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vernon Jordan, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, and many others, as well as her own razor-sharp observations and analysis of such issues as generational conflict and the "black enough" conundrum, Ifill shows why this is a pivotal moment in American history.
The book might be blatantly pro-obama. I could not find any reviews for the thing so no one knows. It is slated to be release Jan 09. A large majority of african-american politicians are black, therefore just by doing this book she's going to be covering a lot of democrats. If she did a book on mormons in politics, the book is going to have more republicans than democrats.
And the title says in a time of Obama. Well we are in a time of Obama. It end in November or it could last eight more year. The last two years regardless if you agree with him, were Obama's. He dominated public conversation and the Democratic party.
Second about the news source. You've said it numerous times, in jest possibly, that you don't trust news sources. Do you trust that one?
If so there's a few things to remember.
Both the Obama/McCain teams get to negotiate the when's and how's of the debate. I would imagine if McCain/Palin didn't want Ifill that could have negotiated her off the debate. They didn't.
Your news source also cites her appearance at the Palin VP nomination speech. Here's what the PBS ombudsman says about it.
Some of the comments about Ifill deal with how she appeared on screen when asked by Lehrer to sum up the reaction on the convention floor after the powerful speech delivered by Palin. I don't know whether Ifill was tired after a long night, or simply trying to talk over very loud noise and music in the background, or struggling to hold her earpiece in place the whole time. But she clearly reported that delegates "exploded with excitement" over Palin's speech and that they "couldn't have been happier." Apparently, that's not enough for some viewers. You have to smile and reflect enthusiasm in order to avoid being painted as biased
The news source cited doesn't lie but they are misleading when they say the she was cited in complaints the PBS ombudsman received.
That amounts to me sending a letter to PBS that Jim Lehehr's tie looks liberal, the ombudsman cites that in his blog, and Fox News says that that ombudsman cites that complaints were received that Lehehr was too liberal. Techinically it's true but the ombudsman never said Lehrer was too liberal.
It seems that those in the conservative media, which clearly this site was, is looking for any and all instances of perceived liberal bias. Of course most of it's manufactured because it's 100% subjective. These aren't true news sites that probably have some level of oversight by an ombudsman.
We should have a rule where you can't cite propaganda news sites, blogs or columnists.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
