Two Interviews Down, One To Go For Charlie Gibson and Gov. Sarah Palin

By Chris Ariens 

The reviews are in for the political ‘get’ of this long campaign. With two interviews already in the can, and one more set for today, TV writers are giving their thoughts on Charles Gibson’s performance so far.

The Baltimore Sun: ABC anchorman Charles Gibson came across as a stern, no-nonsense senior professor putting a graduate student through a tough exam in the first part of his interview with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. Some fans of the usually genial Gibson will probably be reading all sorts of things into his stern demeanor. I thought it necessary, but we’ll see how it plays.

The Washington Post: Anyone who said that Charlie Gibson might go easy on Sarah Palin might want to quickly delete those comments. What the ABC newsman conducted yesterday was a serious, professional interview that went right at the heart of what we want and need to know about the governor: Could she be president? Does she understand the nuances of international affairs? Does she have a world view?

Advertisement Hollywood doesn’t have to do a sequel of “High Noon,” one of the all-time great movies. Charles Gibson and Sarah Palin are doing their best to recreate the dramatic showdown when the hero confronts the villain in Alaska.

McClatchy Newspapers: In Thursday’s “World News” segment, the focus was on international affairs. Asking Palin a quick series of questions, Gibson took little opportunity to explore Palin’s views in depth. He accepted largely at face value her responses, which didn’t stray far from the positions of her running mate, John McCain.

Also, a TVNewser reader takes issue with one of the lines from Alessandra Stanley‘s write-up on the interview which we picked up last night. Stanley wrote:

[Gibson’s] attitude was at times supercilious: He asked if a nuclear Iran posed an “existential threat” to Israel, as if it were the land of Sartre, not Sabras.

Our reader responds:

The phrase “existential threat” here simply means a threat to Israel’s existence. Nothing whatsoever to do with Sartre or existentialism.