Jump to content

Talk:Charles Gibson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Health

[edit]

"Gibson also has a mild form of Parkinson's Disease, which may be noted during his broadcasts as subtle shuffles of his body and in most cases his head will shift side to side"

Please source this statement.Burghboy80 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A

good "He is the most favorable choice because of his experience." -- most favorable choice for what? 69.136.90.164 02:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That phrasing is also awkward, perhaps "he is the favored choice"? -Fsotrain09 19:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know if there is something wrong with Charles Gibson? Last night after the President's speech Gibson didn't seem like himself but I have not heard anything to the contrary. He's an outstanding reporter and a class act.

Is That a Hair Weave or a Toupee?

[edit]

It is difficult to tell what that is on Gibson's head, but it doesn't appear to be real hair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.153.18 (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ultimatum?

[edit]

"Gibson answered... with an ultimatum: Gibson would be given the sole anchor position through the 2008 elections or he would quit the network."

What is the source of this information? Such a serious accusation attacks the integrity of Gibson and ABC News. Thus, the ultimatum statement must be cited to conform to NPOV. If no citation is added in the next couple of days, I am going to remove the statement from the article. Since I get most of my news from PBS/NPR, I don't have any personal motivations in this matter. I just think that a citation is needed for such a serious statement. Gobbles414 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

substantation ?

[edit]

"Gibson hosted what may be the last democratic primary debate on April 16th, 2008. It was an unmitigated disaster with questions that did not touch on actual issues, but instead catered to tabloid journalism. Millions of Americans have since written to ABC News asking for an apology from Mr. Gibson. "

Is there a link to support this assertion?

Palin interview

[edit]

There is currently a paragraph detailing a few items from his interview of '08 Republican VP nominee, Sarah Palin. While I did not see the interview and cannot comment on its content, the paragraph in question needs some work as it is clearly not NPOV, a bit ironic since it accuses Gibson of bias. It has several citations, but a couple of them are clearly conservative websites. Not that they can't be sources for things, but they are not helping the article and likely it does not need a paragraph detailing the interview at all beyond the fact that he did it. Yes/no? Xym (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the conservative web sites were used as source for the full transcript of the interview, showing how the interview was edited. The article did not accuse Gibson of bias, it stated facts that other sources accused Gibson of bias. This event was significant in the 2008 Election and shows a trend of Gibson toward biased reporting.

He was accused of bias during his the Hillary-Obama debate too. DockuHi 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Brent Bozell points out (in Charles Gibson's Palin Double Standard), "Does anyone believe that if Barack Obama had picked Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as a running mate, Gibson would have tried to embarrass her about which Bush Doctrine she thought was the Bush Doctrine? It would have been a trip through Candy Land by comparison." Bozell adds: "In March, when it came to questions about Obama's venomous Rev. Wright, the one who thought America deserved 9/11 and that the U.S. government invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks, Gibson could only offer Obama his most supine congratulations on his 'extraordinary speech on race.'" It's about double standards, folks. Double standards… Asteriks (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think accusations of anti-Palin bias should be given undo weight. In public opinion polls, Palin is regarded negatively by most people. Yet some people on the Right treat her with a messianic devotion. I think it gives an inaccurate look back at the 2008 U.S. Presidential campaign to portray the minority theory of some conservative supporters that Palin was railroaded by the media as some majority, neutral notion. --JamesAM (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James, you are totally missing the boat. Whether or not the public thinks negatively about Palin is completely beside the point. If Gibson was accused of bias, it should be noted in his writeup. No one is saying definitively iif it was bias, that would be opinion. But the facts are he was accused of having bias. JettaMann (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias isn't necessarily the issue here, but there most certainly is some controversy with respect to the interview that absolutely should he documented here. The issue is this: Gibson attempted to embarrass Palin for not knowing the 'Bush Doctrine', when in fact Gibson was not defining it correctly himself. As a 'journalist', he should have researched the 'Bush Doctrine' further, at least enough to understand that the definition is ambiguous and has evolved. He did not and therefore failed in one of his most important duties as a journalist. Of course, the other possibility is he knew that, and intended all along to embarrass Palin should she not know which definition he was referring to; or should she pick one of the many he could simply chose another. This would clearly be a matter of bias. Either way, its a controversy that should be highlighted here. This is all rather well laid out in a column by Charles Krauthammer[1] who first termed and is the leading source of the Bush doctrine. This interview was probably the most important television moments for Gibson in his entire career, so it is rather odd that it is not documented here.

Since there is no reference documenting Gibson's commentary on the Palin interview, I have deleted it until it can be properly referenced.

Please stop inserting unsubstantiated and unreferenced comments in this article.

Thank you!

The Sarah Palin interview is very noteworthy, and should be included. Thank you for stopping inserting unsubstantiated and unreferenced comments, but documented events such as this that are important should be included. I have included it again.

Not without appropriate sources indicating encyclopedic significance. Two sources which don't mention bias are hardly sufficient to support a claim of widespread accusations of bias. Read WP:BLP, which the deleted text clearly violated, both for lack of sourcing and onesidedness. RPP filed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph continues to be removed, so I will add it again. Please stop deleting important documented information. Thanks.

I have noted your objection to the words 'bias' and 'many' and have deleted them. I hope that concludes this matter.

Of course it doesn't. The presentation of only criticism violates BLP, and raises NPOV issues, and partisan, heat-of-the-moment criticism hardly demonstrates encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the automatic message warning of a possible 'editing war'. It was getting close to that, but I think we have settled on good wording.

Ok, so what would you suggest? Why don't you try to write up something that you feel does not violate the BLP and VPOV issues. It is far too important to omit - and you just deleted the entire paragraph.

So, what would you suggest?? I look forward to your response and finishing up this issue.


I am patiently waiting for your response. I know Wikepedia rules encourage us to discuss things before making any changes. I am continue to wait for you to participate in a discussion. Otherwise, I will go back and edit the article in a non-bias way.

Attention Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Since you have not responded to my requests, I will edit the article again.

References

  1. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html

Tussle with Gore Vidal

[edit]

Gore Vidal claims that Gibson pulled the audio feed from his interview and claimed it was audio problems: http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/vidal-mcveigh.html "I mentioned the unmentionable word "why," followed by the atomic trigger word "Waco." Charles Gibson, 3,500 miles away, began to hyperventilate. "Now, wait a minute…" he interrupted. But I talked through him. Suddenly I heard him say, "We’re having trouble with the audio." Then he pulled the plug that linked ABC and me. The soundman beside me shook his head. "Audio was working perfectly. He just cut you off." "

Is this a typo?

[edit]

Block quoteGibson donated $85 to Shenandoah University in Winchester at the request of his high school girlfriend, Dolores Pearse.[17] She wanted him to establish the Pearse Gibson II Music Scholarship Fund in memory of his brother, who died in early 2006

Is this a typo? Should it be $85,000 dollars? $850,000? I'm all for donating any amount no matter how small, but $85 dollars doesn't seem quite correct, or all that noteworthy fora Wiki entry for that matter. Sector001 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Charles Dana Gibson?

[edit]

I believe that Charles Gibson is a descendant of some sort of Charles Dana Gibson, the early 20th century illustrator. Although I seem to recall Gibson mentioning the relationship from time to time during his Good Morning America stint, I can't find an authoritative citation to that effect on line. Stlli, I figured I'd mention it here in case any other editor can find appropriate reference and deems it worth note in the article itself --TommyRaiko (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Is Charles Gibson narrating this? The Youtoons Get Ready for Obamacare

[edit]

Henry J Kaiser Foundation's educational video about the Affordable Care Act in USA. (He sounds great)

99.232.21.31 (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Charles Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Gibson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Gibson&oldid=1207419241"