Democratic Presidential Debate Trivialized Again
I wrote a blog on March 11 titled "Presidential Debates Trivialized By Moderators.
Here are a few excerpts:
"What do the following issues have in common? Habeas corpus, telecom liability or retroactive immunity, the Bush administration's defiance of congressional oversight, presidential signing statements, the limits of presidential authority, separation of powers, the role of the courts, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, the Guantanamo detention center and military commissions, secret CIA prisons, and many other civil liberties and human rights issues.
"According to an article in IPS News, except for one question about wiretapping, none of the above subjects were discussed in the presidential debates this year.
"News personalities, aka moderators like Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson, Chris Matthews, etc. are egotistic, hubristic, accustomed to almost eight years of regurgitating Bush administration propaganda and are an integral part of the Washington political scene, buddies with the subjects of their so called reporting. No one should expect their questions to be challenging or professionally journalistic. And their questions, true to form, were slanted and often inane.
"And then there was Charlie Gibson who was completely out of touch with the real world:
“ 'You’re all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse,' Gibson told the Democratic candidates. When Clinton interrupted to point out that the candidates were, in fact, talking about 'the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans; not the middle-class tax cuts,' Gibson responded: 'If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm [College in New Hampshire where the debate was taking place], they’re going to be in the $200,000 category that you’re talking about lifting the taxes on.'
"At that point, the audience laughed at Charlie Gibson. He was so wrong — so out of touch — that the audience laughed at him. And for good reason: As Media Matters documented, a full professor at St. Anselm has an average salary of about $77,000 — meaning that Gibson inflated the average salary of two such professors by 30 percent."
Well, it was deja vu all over again last evening.
As Gregg Mitchell wrote at Editor & Publisher, "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.
"Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
"Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.
"More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.
"Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end."
Thank goodness for the crowd expressing its righteous dismay at the so called Fourth Estate moderators' glaring stupidity and superficiality. After his performance in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson should have been persona non grata for both campaigns.
What I wrote in March is still germane, "There could have been real presidential candidate debates that would have truly served and enlightened the American electorate if any or all of the following, for example, had been moderators: Amy Goodman, Robert Scheer, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Jason Leopold, Jim Hightower, Mark Karlin, Jonathan Tasini, David Sirota.
"No more Russert, Blitzer, Gibson, etc. inside the beltway moderators. Let's have truly substantive debates in the future. The American electorate demands and deserves it."
Perhaps someday, Democratic candidates will learn from the rank and file and demand real debates.
Here are a few excerpts:
"What do the following issues have in common? Habeas corpus, telecom liability or retroactive immunity, the Bush administration's defiance of congressional oversight, presidential signing statements, the limits of presidential authority, separation of powers, the role of the courts, warrantless wiretapping, rendition, the Guantanamo detention center and military commissions, secret CIA prisons, and many other civil liberties and human rights issues.
"According to an article in IPS News, except for one question about wiretapping, none of the above subjects were discussed in the presidential debates this year.
"News personalities, aka moderators like Tim Russert, Brian Williams, Wolf Blitzer, Charlie Gibson, Chris Matthews, etc. are egotistic, hubristic, accustomed to almost eight years of regurgitating Bush administration propaganda and are an integral part of the Washington political scene, buddies with the subjects of their so called reporting. No one should expect their questions to be challenging or professionally journalistic. And their questions, true to form, were slanted and often inane.
"And then there was Charlie Gibson who was completely out of touch with the real world:
"Blitzer’s misleading performance came just a few weeks after ABC’s Charlie Gibson similarly bungled a question about taxes during the Democratic debate he moderated in New Hampshire.
“ 'You’re all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse,' Gibson told the Democratic candidates. When Clinton interrupted to point out that the candidates were, in fact, talking about 'the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans; not the middle-class tax cuts,' Gibson responded: 'If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm [College in New Hampshire where the debate was taking place], they’re going to be in the $200,000 category that you’re talking about lifting the taxes on.'
"At that point, the audience laughed at Charlie Gibson. He was so wrong — so out of touch — that the audience laughed at him. And for good reason: As Media Matters documented, a full professor at St. Anselm has an average salary of about $77,000 — meaning that Gibson inflated the average salary of two such professors by 30 percent."
Well, it was deja vu all over again last evening.
As Gregg Mitchell wrote at Editor & Publisher, "In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.
"Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
"Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.
"More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.
"Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end."
Thank goodness for the crowd expressing its righteous dismay at the so called Fourth Estate moderators' glaring stupidity and superficiality. After his performance in New Hampshire, Charlie Gibson should have been persona non grata for both campaigns.
What I wrote in March is still germane, "There could have been real presidential candidate debates that would have truly served and enlightened the American electorate if any or all of the following, for example, had been moderators: Amy Goodman, Robert Scheer, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow, Jason Leopold, Jim Hightower, Mark Karlin, Jonathan Tasini, David Sirota.
"No more Russert, Blitzer, Gibson, etc. inside the beltway moderators. Let's have truly substantive debates in the future. The American electorate demands and deserves it."
Perhaps someday, Democratic candidates will learn from the rank and file and demand real debates.
Comments