Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts

Friday, April 18, 2008

"Journalists Slam ABC Debate Tactics (Open Letter)"

The Nation:
In an open letter to ABC, journalists and media commentator condemn the network's poor handling of the April 16 Democratic presidential debate.

We the undersigned deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.

This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.

For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.

The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.

We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate--who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves--have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.

Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher, describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Spencer Ackerman, The Washington Independent
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Berube, Crooked Timber, the University of Pennsylvania
Joel Bleifuss, In These Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Joe Conason, Journalist and Author
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber, George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Christopher Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, UCLA/The Reality Based Community
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future
Katha Pollitt, The Nation
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Mark Schmitt, The New America Foundation
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View
Michael Tomasky, The Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media Consortium
Kai Wright, The Root
Howie P.S.: The key point
We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.

Thursday, September 27, 2007

"Highlight Reel--Dartmouth Dem Debate" (video)

Talking Points Memo video, (12:00):
On Wednesday night the Democratic presidential candidates squared off at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire for the first Dem debate of the fall season. Which candidate has the true plan for getting us out of Iraq? Which candidate believes the national army of Iran should be classified as a terrorist organization? And which candidate thinks Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about? Find out all the answers and more in today's Highlight Reel episode of TPMtv.

Monday, June 04, 2007

"My take on the Democratic presidential debate last night "

John Aravosis (AMERICAblog):
Bill Richardson is the governor of New Mexico, in case you didn't know.
Dennis Kucinich and Gravel are just annoying. Yeah, I get it, some of you like Kucinich. And that's nice. Joe likes his dog Boomer too. It doesn't mean he should be on stage with the real candidates. Kucinich has zero chance of winning, as does Gravel - they shouldn't be on the stage taking time from the serious candidates. Though, oddly, and disturbingly, a number of us at our debate party last night found ourselves agreeing with Gravel repeatedly. It was creepy.

Hillary. Did quite well, I thought. And I say that as someone who has increasing worries about Mrs. Clinton as president. She was out there, in a good way, on the gay question (as I wrote last night), and overall came across as smart, poised, and presidential. Again, I still have growing concerns about who we're really electing as president, Hillary or Mark Penn. But she did well last night.

Obama. He was good. I thought he was better than last time. He seemed awfully young in the last debate. In this one, I thought he was smart, mature, and very "vice presidential" if not presidential. I'm hearing from more and more people that they'd like to see a Gore-Obama ticket in 2008.

Edwards. I don't think Edwards did very well. I don't think he got much air time compared to Hillary and Obama, and was just kind of missing during the debate - though the few times he did talk, I thought he looked and sounded good. Still, it was Hillary's evening, not Edwards. I actually just checked MyDD and they've got the number of minutes each candidate got:

* Tier One: Obama (16:00), Clinton (14:26)
* Tier Two: Edwards (11:42), Richardson (10:48)
* Tier Three: Kucinich (9:02), Biden (7:58), Dodd (7:28)
* Tier Four: Gravel (5:37)

Biden. He actually did really well, and we don't even like Biden. I thought his passion, especially about Darfur, whether real or concocted, came across as true and compassionate. You got the sense he believes in something.

Dodd. I still really like him. He's never gonna be president, but I like him. As for Richardson, he just doesn't come across as though he's really there - it's like watching a hologram of Bill Richardson.
Howie P.S.: As one who has been called the "the Abe Linkin' of progressive Seattle" (scroll down on the left), it is fitting that this is not really MY take, but the that of John Aravosis, (see above). Nonetheless, you are welcome to infer that I share some affinity with it.