Journalists Slam ABC Debate Tactics
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/18/_journalists_slam_abc_debate_t/
By Dean Baker - April 18, 2008, 1:11PM
[Note: The following is a sign-on letter to ABC to which I was a signer. I am posting it in my slot at TPMCafe to help circulate it, not because I played a lead role in drafting it.]
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, Pennsylvania State University
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
___________________________________
what can I say except I feel real bad now.
/sarcasm
Dangit, a who’s who of the Left.
“We, the undersigned, deplore the conduct of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16.”
If Obama’s other associations aren’t enough to prove Obama’s out-and-out Leftist pedigree the Left-Journalist crybaby whining over the debate does.
We the undersigned, deplore the conduct of the left blogosphere in their reaction to the Democratic Presidential debate on April 16. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize character questions, and such questions are a legitimate part of the debate. “For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator.” - So what, whiners. Can’t you read up on the other 20 debates with the legions of softball questions. Didn’t Obama himself admit that he knows Clinton’s lines and she know his by now. That is well-trodden ground. WHAT IS NOT WELL-TRODDEN GROUND IS UNDERSTANDING WHO OBAMA REALLY IS.
These questions were far more relvent than junk questions thrown up in GOP debates.
These complaints are really complaints that expose the real Barack Obama and “pull the bark off of Barack Hussein Obama” as the talk show host Cunningham said. McCain was embarrassed for Cunningham’s choice of words, but it was on target. Obama is not running an honest campaign. The “Clinton media” pulled through and gave us a revealing debate.
Those who dont like it have only Barack Obama to blame, for not responding better to those questions.
- WOSG,