Thread: Is Katie Couric biased?

Originally Posted by Amador +JP2+

Katie Couric: Perky and Liberally Biased - (Couric Bias by Topic) -* Media Research Center

or YouTube - Katie Couric Admits Liberal Bias

or Katie Couric's Liberal Bias: Today and Yesterday - Media Research Center

or

Sarah Palin Disses Katie Couric: 'Why Waste My Time?' - HUMAN EVENTS

Perhaps there are a few things in there that demonstrate Couric's bias. I am certain a liberal / left wing partisan would argue otherwise.

I was referring to the one and only interview that she did with Palin. Sure, she might vote left but where in that interview does she exude bias and in doing so, unfairly treat Palin?

i don't really get why sarah palin keeps putting herself out there like this.. there's no way she would win a presidential election and i'd guess her party doesn't want her anywhere near the nomination

i guess the easy answer is that she's dumb..

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

I was referring to the one and only interview that she did with Palin. Sure, she might vote left but where in that interview does she exude bias and in doing so, unfairly treat Palin?

Fine, if you wish to limit the conversation to the interview. Take a listen to Couric's questions. In many of those questions, she assumes a particular view of what action/inaction would mean (the Democrat/Obama view). For example, @ 7:04 the question posed by Couric all but says, "Why isn't it better to save Americans rather than reward villains?" couching the question to imply that Palin doesn't believe it is better to save/help Americans.

However, let me add the following: It is my opinion that in the 2008 campaign Palin struggled for two reasons, 1. Palin's inexperience in fielding a broad range of questions with the best "political" answer. Obama was perhaps more clueless than Palin, but at least he was on message and comfortable with this sort of exchange. He was typically outstanding in controlled venues. 2. Palin suffered for McCain's inane, inconsistent, and contradictory messages. McCain is a pox (or dingleberry if you like) on the hind end of the Republican elephant.

As for Palin's "decision" not to be interviewed by Couric ... I think it is a poor decision. In my opinion, Palin should shore up her weaknesses, accept interviews with Couric, and help to reveal Couric for the hack partisan that she is. Anyone worth being voted to office should have the strength, confidence, and capacity to articulate meaningful and persuasive arguments irrespective of the audience/interviewer. The ONLY thing I think that gives Palin any cover is that people like Couric will take the smallest error and magnify it beyond reason to achieve a political agenda. If Palin wants to be our President she needs to find a way to make Couric (and those like her) insignificant in political discourse (through discussion/debate).

Originally Posted by Amador +JP2+

Fine, if you wish to limit the conversation to the interview. Take a listen to Couric's questions. In many of those questions, she assumes a particular view of what action/inaction would mean (the Democrat/Obama view). For example, @ 7:04 the question posed by Couric all but says, "Why isn't it better to save Americans rather than reward villains?" couching the question to imply that Palin doesn't believe it is better to save/help Americans.

However, let me add the following: It is my opinion that in the 2008 campaign Palin struggled for two reasons, 1. Palin's inexperience in fielding a broad range of questions with the best "political" answer. Obama was perhaps more clueless than Palin, but at least he was on message and comfortable with this sort of exchange. He was typically outstanding in controlled venues. 2. Palin suffered for McCain's inane, inconsistent, and contradictory messages. McCain is a pox (or dingleberry if you like) on the hind end of the Republican elephant.

As for Palin's "decision" not to be interviewed by Couric ... I think it is a poor decision. In my opinion, Palin should shore up her weaknesses, accept interviews with Couric, and help to reveal Couric for the hack partisan that she is. Anyone worth being voted to office should have the strength, confidence, and capacity to articulate meaningful and persuasive arguments irrespective of the audience/interviewer. The ONLY thing I think that gives Palin any cover is that people like Couric will take the smallest error and magnify it beyond reason to achieve a political agenda. If Palin wants to be our President she needs to find a way to make Couric (and those like her) insignificant in political discourse (through discussion/debate).

And you prove yourself wrong in that Palin agreed with her by answering yes that she found the bailout to be a bad idea. Also, how could it be the Obama view she (Couric) was implying in the question when Obama himself was in favor of the bailout?

Lastly, if you want to try to say that she showed some bias in her questions although it's clear there was none, calling her a partisan hack shows that you have know objectivity. Rush, Hannity, O'Reilley and Olbermann are partisan hacks. To call Couric one shows no intergity.

Btw, Palin failed to answer the questions intelligently because she was completely ignorant of the subjects at hand. Don't make excuses for nimwits.