An open letter to Charles Gibson

[PurgedVoter]

Dear Charles,

What did you think you were doing last night at the debate? This debate will be viewed by students of history long after we are both gone. Your journalistic integrity will be right there, a permanent record for anyone interested in this key moment in American history. This is a pivotal moment, or have you not noticed?

Now on record for all curious future historians is this journalist, Charles Gibson. If they are interested in how democracy prevailed or faltered at this juncture where two previous elections were perhaps questionable, they will see in this last debate, a media propagandist that posed as a journalist.

You had an opportunity to ask questions. You had an opportunity to inform your viewers. You blew it. You went for the cheap shot. This was not about you. This was about the leadership of America.

This places it strongly in your lap. As you stand with men who twist the truth to try and make your views seem right, you have set yourself up as a deceiver. Not just one who is misled, or ill informed. No sir, when you feel you are clever, you know full well who you are siding with. You care not about truth, you care about spin. The truth is perhaps inconvenient to your aspirations.

Yes future historians will not care much about Charles Gibson, but some few will always know who he was. The short paragraph blurbs on him will probably be fairly insulting.

As a result of your spinning the news, or ignoring the news on global weather change, the national debt, the deaths in Iraq, the invasions of privacy, the torture of men. You sir, get to go down in history as complicit with all of these things. By not asking questions, or worse asking skewed questions with little relevance, Charles Gibson you have actively led men astray. You have not been a beacon of light. You have not investigated, nor have you reported fairly what you have seen. As time reveals the truth. As men suffer, as our nation has issues in the future, we will be able to point back at you sir. You will have sided with torture, the Iraq occupation, ignoring science, and all other manner of ill. As islands flood, wars continue, poverty robs us, crime festers, and honest democracy struggles, you must face it and say, I did not do my part. I did not stand up.

Do you think that you will come out strong as a defender of man or virtue or God? Do you think for a moment that you will be considered an honest journalist or even a decent man? The best that you can hope for is a tiny note in history. The best that you can now hope for is to be forgotten by man. You sir, Charles Gibson, have earned your fame. You will be ranked with Hannity. Enjoy your position, money and connections. Enjoy passing on your property to your decedents. That is all you have now. You sold the rest of it.

May God have mercy on your soul.

[high density]

1. I think Gibson wants to go work at the Cato Institute

That's all I could figure from the argument he had with Obama over taxes.

[otohara]

11. Or Host Who Wants To Be A Millionaire

asking stupid questions, while trying to look smart with glasses on the tip of his nose.

[bunkerbuster1]

2. "Enjoy passing on your property to your decedents?"

See, that's what he's all afeard of. Them Libruhlz is gonna tax him to death!

[my3boyz]

3. You were a lot nicer than me. Boy did I let him have it. It felt good though! nt

[Flying Dream Blues]

4. Great letter. Better get yourself back on the roll, Purged, we needs ya! nt

[MethuenProgressive]

5. I sent Gibby a thank you for finnaly asking BO hard questions.

It's about time SOMEBODY in the MSM at least pretended BO wasn't their choice.

[PurgedVoter]

8. These were not hard questions.

Truthfully, these were retreads and pretty banal. He could have asked debate questions. You know, the kind of thing you ask both candidates. He could have asked about environmental plans, policy views. Instead we got stuff that was clearly intended to try and make the candidate fumble. I was not real happy with the trust question given to Hillary either. I think she handled it fairly well. That was a very tough question. However, apart from giving her a chance to fall apart or perhaps regain some trust, it did little to inform us on her stances on tough issues.

The petty stuff they threw at Obama hardly qualifies as anything valid. Anyone who liked those questions, had already made up their mind. Lame all of it.

[depakid]

9. Do you think that- just maybe, there's something a little larger at stake here

than partisan "point scoring?"

Like maybe- a higher principle or two?

or (like some of the Obama supporters who you decry) is it all about propping up your candidate -and bashing the other?

[depakid]

6. Not only did he go for the cheap shot- he interjected his (discreditied) personal views

about capital gains taxes (about which he also has a personal financial interest).

Aside from the fact that his comments were inane, spurious and argumentative (a debate isn't a venue for moderators to interject their personal opinions on supply side economics) -the man clearly acted unethically, as any high school student would (or should) have known.

That, in and of itself, should disqualify him from reading the news- or God forbid, ever moderating another debate.

[Ganja Ninja]

7. Even worse.

Steph was there! :wtf: The conflict of interest meter was pegged and smoking on that one. Any organization that prides itself on being journalistic should have realized his presence was inappropriate automatically and never even considered him for the job.

[progressoid]

10. journalistic integrity?

Didn't know he had any of that stuff.