By Z's standards then Tom Brokaw should withdraw from moderating the presidential debate. Brokaw has been functioning as McCain's agent for NBC. This has been documented by the NYTimes. Also, Brokaw has a strong personal relationship with McCain and ties to Republican fundraisers and has hosted Republican fundraisers. Brokaw's connections reek of extreme conflict of interest compared to Ifill's.

Z....you are almost dead on this time. But you still give Gwen a pass when she should have also made it clear of her own potential conflict. When it was announced that Gov Palin's daughter was pregnant. No one seemed to blame Sen. McCain, but questioned whether Gov Palin told Sen McCain during the vetting process. Like Gov Palin, Ifill if she hadn't, should have made it clear about her book and not assumed the committee already knew about it.

Since it's almost impossible to get truly impartial moderators. Maybe in the future candidates should take turns in who they decide should moderate and then neither party can claim an edge.

Z:
You continue to waste space chasing right wingnut memes on this blog. Ms Ifell's book deal was public knowledge since July 23rd weeks before the selection of debate moderators was finalized. If this as big an issue as you wax on it is, then when Brokaw and Schieffer get their prez debate chairs, I ask you to write similar columns bout Tom Brokaw's publicized liaison between NBC and the McCain campaign and the many golf rounds shared by Bob S and John S McCain. Otherwise you are being a tool or a fool for the right wing.
Since Ifell's book was public knowledge before the selection and Brokaw's interventions for McCain was not, that is a bigger concern.
Perhaps if McCain could work "The Google", they would have been aware of this non-issue.
Personally, i think Ifell has been a much fairer observer of this election than either Brokaw or Schieffer and at the end of these debates any fair observer will agree with moi.

I think it is interesting that the conservatives knew about this for over a month. And right before the debate they are outraged and question Ifill's integrity? This is just another attempt to 'poison the well'. That way the right can blame the person who is asking the questions when Palin debates Biden. Is there anyone besides Fox News that can interview her without being attacked by phony outrages?

I believe race is also a factor since 90% of African Americans are Democrats, and nearl;y 98% will vote for Obama. Ifill is not an unbiased moderator. To me that is stacking ther deck against Palin.

She's got to go. Any pretense of impartiality has gone out the window. She's in the Obama camp, and in deep, because she now has a huge financial interest in him being elected. I can't believe she actually played the race card in the Washington Post with Howard Kurtz. She's welcome to write her book, of course, but she can't have it both ways.

Ifill thinks she can do a good, but I don't and think she should step down. She has to have a subconscious bias and if we wait til after the debate to determine if she did a good job, then its too late for the public! Another absurdity in the course of our government. If so many people think because of her book she might be biased, then it would behove her to remove herself and not take the chance. We have a crisis, an unbiased, non-book writer in favor of one candidate should moderate!

I'm sorry, but it was made public and reported in the press back on July 21 that Ifill was "author of 'The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,' slated for publication early next year."

So, apparently the McCain campaign didn't do their research if this is just coming as a surprise to them.

Or, they're using it preemptively to explain why Palin might not do well.

Hi, You could be right about the pre-emptive business, and yes it was reported in the press. But the debate organizers say they did not know about it and Ifill did not disclose it to them. Maybe that is their fault. But whoever is at fault, the perception exists, and it has to be dealt with now. I think a simple statement at the top of the broadcast will help a lot. Thanks. Z

This seems to be a conflict of interest. On the other hand, there's one other big obvious reason why debate viewers would perceive her to be biased toward one candidate even if she had not written the book, so the fact that she has a book coming out is actually irrelevant.

To Dave and all the conservative nuts I have a news flash for you. It has been widely publicized since July 23 about the book. The AP did a story about the book which was not just about Obama, but Black politicians in general. Second, in August the pre-sale orders were announced and if anyone took the time to Google Ms. Ifill they would see this to be true. Finally, this smacks of racism. Since they are both black there must be a conspiracy. No one ever thought that since she is a woman that she may favor Sarah Palin. I noticed no one brought that fact out. So the phony outrage needs to stop. This book and Ms. Ifill are the worst secret kept in American history. Dave, I thought the first rule of journalism was to check the facts. I guess I was wrong. The first rule is phony outrage, followed by questioning a womans integrity.

Hi, plerase see my earlier reply about the debate organizers not knowing and them saying Ifill did not disclose. Thanks. Z

Yours is the first solid article I've seen from a journalist underlining the issue of journalist integrity. If this were in a courtroom, the judge would recuse himself of there would be a mistrial. Jim Lehrer should take Gwen's notes and step in to take her place.

Hi, thanks. For all the ridicule some of my colleagues like to heap on lawyers, I often am reminded of the higher standard of ethics in the legal profession. Now whether those are fairly enforced or not is another matter. But conflicts of interest are enforced in courtrooms and result in real-world life-changing decisions. Thanks. Z

What does this book (which isn't even published yet) have to do with VPs ANSWERING QUESTIONS for the American people???....NOTHING !!! Would you please grow up. If Sarah Palin or Joe Biden cannot answer simple questions from the moderator/author, then they will have no one to blame but themselves. This is not brain surgery people. GET A CLUE and STOP Complaining. a Moderator, monitors..that's it

Thank you, David, for your factual, objective, and even-handed treatment of this. In the past I had critiqued your reviews of Palin's televised performance as being colored by your political leanings. I withdraw that critique here and applaud your objectivity in the Ifill matter.

What a sham, oh, let's see, the debate is being held by an O'bama supporter who took the time to write a book about him, and some think there is no conflict here? Jeeez wake up and smell the stupidity. And if I was Pailin the first time the moderator pushed me, I would ask her what her motivation was in asking such pointed questions and remind the American people that she is an O'Bama supporter and has written a bible...er...I mean book about him.

I think the part of all this which worries most people is the fact that she could conceivably choose the questions and frame them in a way to favor Biden over Palin. Likewise, she could also steer the tenor of the responses.

So would this be a concern if the debate were staged as a "Town Hall"-style event, where the questions come from the audience and have a level of randomness about them? Perhaps, but she couldn't have nearly as much impact on the outcomes.

Related story: I had an opportunity to moderate a City Council candidate debate in the 10th District last year. The incumbent did not show up but there were several contenders for his seat, and the questions were submitted by audience members but presented by me. Some of the more contentious ones had to take some editing on my part to make them more balanced before I could read them aloud. I had my bias in the election--and who doesn't, really?--but if a non-professional like myself can keep it in check, I don't really have a reason to believe that Ifill can't do so as well.

Z: You're dead on, and I can't understand why, aside from political bias, so many journalists are so quick to give Ifill a pass on this.

The conflict is as clear as day: Ifill's book on "The Age of Obama" is being published on Inauguration Day. Its success largely hinges on whether Obama wins.

It doesn't matter how great her credentials are, or even whether the book is pro-Obama (although clearly, it is).

She has a (financial) stake in the outcome of the election, people.

How is that NOT a conflict of interest or, at the very least, the appreance of a conflict of interest?.

And why wouldn't everyone, including Obama supporters, want a moderator who wouldn't be so vulnerable to charges of bias?

Hi, I think part of the problem is that many of us write books, and we do not like to talk about the issues of gaining access and the unspoken debts incurred as we do that. And the most powerful journalists are the very ones writing the books, so it is easier to take a pass than comment on this one. The other thing is that Ifill is host of an important Washington talk show, and everyone wants to be on important Washington talk shows -- me included. So, there are a lot of reasons to say nothing or give her an instant pass. But that is exactly the kind of thing that erodes our credibility with the American people. Look, I can tell by the reaction I have already received today that some of my colleagues think I should have taken a pass or blah,blah,blah'd my way through a "no big deal" explanation. But I teach media ethics at Goucher College -- I have since the mid 1990s -- and I could not face the kids in that course if I did what so many of my colleagues (and friends) are doing. Again, I expect Ifill will do a fine and fair job tonight, but you have to acknowledge the potential and perception. I think she should have taken a pass on moderating the debate. You cannot always have it all. You want the book, you pass on the debate. Simple and clean. Thanks. Z

I think that Ifill will do a decent job. She has to now, more than ever.

I think that to make this issue go away and in the interest of fairness we need to change moderators on one of the remaining presidential debates. I nominate: Jerome R Corsi.

Hi, I totally agree that Ifill will do a good and fair job. I would be shocked if she did not. I think she and the debate organizers just need to address the issue and move into the debate. Z

First the media attacked Opray fro not having Palin on her show. Now the attack Ms. Ifill because she may be an Obama supporter. It appears that whites in the media can maintain their professionalism and control the political bias when conducting an interview or debate, but a highly respected black female can not be counted on to do the same.

Once again we have another example of obvious media bias. The press has not tried to do any reporting on this conflict of interest either. The moderator has now played the race card (big surprise!) and feels she is ENTITLED to do the interview.
Unfortunately, the American people of ALL races and party associations feel this is a farce. Try calling the numbers of the associated committees for this debate. I haven't been able to get through in almost 2 days because of busy lines!!

It seems to me that what is of importance is how each VP candidate answers posed to them. And then, question each others positions of the policies they support. What ever the views of the moderator are irrelavent. Ms Ifill has done this before and knows what is fair if only to maintain her credibility. If the moderator wrote a book about women and put Pallin in the book would the Repubs still be upset.

Hi, I agree. But please see what Jim Lehrer said in my post about perception. I agree with him. And I think that is where things start to get messy in terms of Ifill's book. Thanks. Z

re: "If the moderator wrote a book about women and put Pallin in the book would the Repubs still be upset."

As a conservative seeking a fair and fair-minded debate, yes, I would be upset if the moderator for this debate was someone whose book, "The Breakthrough: Women Politicians in the Age of Palin" were already written and was due on Inauguration Day.

That would be a clear conflict, because that moderator would have a stake (financial and otherwise) in the outcome of the election.

Ifill did more than simply put Obama in her book. She made Obama and the idea of Obama the centerpiece of her book. As Z points out, she also gained special access to Obama, for an interview (or series of interviews) preparing for the book.

This is textbook conflict of interest. And it's sad, and disturbing, that so many journalists don't want to recognize it as such.

Does it mean that Ifill can't possibly do a good job, and treat candidates fairly? No, she'll probably do fine.

But it does mean that she must acknowledge the bias, at the very least, on the air.

If she's as good and as conscientious a journalist as she and her supporters say she is, then she would take it a step farther, say "the perception of conflict is unfair to the candidates and to the public" and ask another journalist, one without clear conflict, to step in this time.

But I suspect the lure of the spotlight is too great for her to give ethics a higher priority than her need to bask in the limelight (and, ultimately, bump up her name recognition, which will ultimately help sales of her book).

Hello, thanks. Please see a comment I just published in response to an earlier post. I think we are in general agreement on this. Z

Forgot about the debate! If she is in the tank for Obama, what is she doing working at PBS - the Public's Broadcasting System?

Everyone knows that Ifill isn’t even close to objective, but now she’s got the book and her financial and ideological investment in helping to get Obama elected.
McCain had better change his tune. I want to hear some real straight talk, not his namby-pamby idiot-speak. Ifill is a disreputable pseudo-journalist who doesn’t seem to know or care about the most fundamental ideas of disclosure, and she should not be working for any “reputable” journalistic organization. Not that the NYT, NBC, or PBS have ever been accussed of being “reputable.”
And McCain let Palin attack the media - rightfully so – but now he’s going to let Palin twist in the wind while sticking up for Gwen Ifill and her indefensibly stupid and unethical position?
Straight talk and accountability? I see McCain dodging both, here. Way to go, Johnny. PC us to death.

The debate audience has a right to know about the moderator's book. Ifill and the debate Commission have a moral and ethical obligation to disclose her financial stake. Has she already received an advance payment?

I recall how Obama supporters man yin the media attacked the ABC moderators AFTER the Democratic debate in PA for somehow being anti-Obama.

I can't agree with you here, Z. The book, announced months ago and written up in the NY Times, I can't see how it will have any bearing on it.

What the GOP is trying to do is find something they can hold against Ms. Ifill. She's a woman, so they can't say she's sexist. She's African-American, so they can't suggest she's rasist. They need to find some angle that they can use against her in this continuious under-the-skin smear campaign, one that does not focus on the candidates, but those who are supposed to be neutral. Ms. Ifill has proven herself in the past to be capable in her job. I cannot see how this book might change the way she moderates the debate - a debate that unlike in previous years - people actually care about.

Hello Abby L., Again, I would direct you to what Jim lehrer said about the moderator and the perception of fairness. Would you feel that way if the moderator was someone who had written a book about McCain? Thanks. Z

I get the gist of your argument, and think it's worth hashing out. I'm confused, though, by an ancillary point you make. You write: "If Obama gave her access, as she says that he did, then they were essentially in business together -- him in telling her story, and her in recording and then reporting it."

By this logic, every journalist enters into business with every source the minute they first quote that source, or perhaps even at the moment they sit down for the first interview. This seems to suggest an unreasonable and entirely counterproductive standard.

Hi Bruce. In a strict sense, yes this is true. Usually, people only talk to the press -- even for a fast answer -- because they think it can do them some good in one way or another. So, yes, there is almost always a quid pro quo when someone takes your call. But when you get to the demand on time that being the subject of a book entails and the potential money that is involved, you definitely have to constantly examine the relationship and your motives. I still feel indebted to some of the Hollywood writers and producers who made my book, "The Jews of Prime Time," possible by talking to me for extended periods of time.Z

Completely aside from her credentials and reputation as a journalist, both parties can view the moderator issue as an unfair advantage. Republicans will anticipate that Ifill is favoring Obama in her questioning while the democrats can recognize that the Republicans could potentially use Ifil's connection to Obama as an excuse if Palin does not perform well at the debate. Democrats and republicans have reasonable concerns, but hopefully the American public will dismiss the background politics (since both sides are equally affected) if only to use this event as it was intended- to learn more about the candidates.

Yes, let's hope. Z

Gwen Ifill is a distinguished journalist with a long history of excellence. This issue surfaced two days before the debate. Are you seriously telling me that the McCain-Palin campaign had no idea? Yesterday it was "if too many questions on foreign policy are asked, it will be unfair to Palin". I guess if too many questions are asked about Alaska, it will be unfair to Biden.

Hi, thanks for the comment. Try to look at it as an ethicist would. Is there a conflict or potential conflict or appearance of conflict? I agree about Ifill's history. But it doesn't matter in the larger context of having a professional relationship with one of the two debaters. When or whether the GOp handlers knew is not relevant to the core ethical question. Thanks. Z

David, I love how your words here are sparking debate. In my view, I am having difficulty believing that, since no one has read the book, how anyone can make a judgment about Ifill's personal bias.
I have never given much thought to the political leanings of Schieffer, Brokaw, et al since their work has always seemed to be rather straight forward and balanced. I must give Gewn Ifil the same pass.

Hi Paul, I think a lot of people agree with you. And if she does well tonight, I think that will possibly even be the consensus. I think it has to be discussed, though, so that her relationship to Obama is fully understood. Thanks. Z

I am sorry but it is not like debate moderators always go into a debate completely unbiased. It is frankly impossible. You are judging her going into it, but the question is not that she has a bias but whether her bias comes out in the debate. But to act like Ifill is going into this debate to give Obama an edge is a judgment that goes against a career of good reporting.

I am a democrat and will vote fro Obama but it seems to me that I have more faith in Gov Palin's ability to debate than many of the people have send in blogs. I always thought she would do well. But campaign managers needed to let her loose!

Gov. Palin did better than I thought she would but McCain's advisors should have prepared her better. If McCain choose her because she would be representing "all" women, I was insulted because she was not prepared or cared to respond to the questions presented. As a candidate for such a high office, and a potential President, Palin should have been more professional demonstrating that even the little political experience that she has that she has a lot to offer. She was too folksy and at point condescending to Biden and disrespectful to Ms. Ifill. Since this was her only debate I felt that she could have and should have made a better presentation. Clearly, there were other Republican women who were more than ready to assume this position.

Mr. Zurawik: In your piece about the Ifill book "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" you say that he is featured "prominently." The NY Times story of this kirfuffle says that the book is about black leadership in the post-civil rights era and that she has a chapter in the book about Obama. That doesn't sound like "priminently." Do you know how much of her book is devoted to Obama? Charles Ritter

Hi, As I said in the original post, Barack Obama is one of four people profiled in the book, according to Ifill. You can hear her talk about it herself in the You Tube link I have in the original post. Do you think one out of four isn't prominent? And do you think the bookk is being released on inauguration because one of the other three might be president? I hate the word "kirfuffle." It's endless use in the MSM is one of the reasons we no longer know as a culture what to take seriously. Thanks.