Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The bias of Bob Schieffer: Top 7 moments
Michelle Malkin ^ | October 22, 2012 | Michelle Malkin

Posted on 10/22/2012 10:53:13 AM PDT by george76

In August, I blasted the Commission on Presidential Debate’s choices of three Beltway lib journo-tools — CNN’s Candy Crowley, PBS’s Jim Lehrer and CBS’s Bob Schieffer. So far, they’ve acted just as expected and predicted. As I noted:

While the debate panel trumpeted the gender diversity of its picks, the chromosomal diversity is far outweighed by the political uniformity, class conformity and geographical homogeneity of the group.

...

The presidential debates are the last bastion of “mainstream” media self-delusion in the 21st century. They are a ritual laughingstock for tens of millions of American viewers who have put up with leading, softball questions for Democratic candidates and combative, fili-blustery lectures for Republican candidates campaign cycle after cycle.

(Excerpt) Read more at michellemalkin.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012debates; bias; bobschieffer; candy; crowley; jimlehrer; malkin; media; msm; newspapers; oldmedia; pbs; schieffer

1 posted on 10/22/2012 10:53:15 AM PDT by george76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: george76

Earlier I read this from MM’s site. Good stuff bump.


2 posted on 10/22/2012 11:12:05 AM PDT by Loud Mime (arguetheconstitution.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
What gets me is why these candidates agree to this.

In arbitration hearings, one of the biggest negotiating points for attorneys is the obvious - the arbitrator. Union attorneys don't want business sympathizers and corporate counsel doesn't want a Jimmy Hoffa clone.

Raddatz? Crowley? Schieffer? Are you nuts?

3 posted on 10/22/2012 11:15:16 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I don’t watch the debates on purpose because they just make me mad.

From all accounts tho, Crowley must have set a record for obvious bias. I guess the Republicans are just plain used to being screwed and just go along.


4 posted on 10/22/2012 11:20:19 AM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Bob Skeletor will be his imperious harrumphy now-see-here-Governor-Romney worst at tonight’s Obama Revivalation.

Mitt needs to smile, keep his cool, and just refuse to acknowledge the moral superiority double-teaming that has been planned.


5 posted on 10/22/2012 11:23:34 AM PDT by elcid1970 ("Free speech is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I never really have understood why Republicans put up with the moderator choices. During the debates for the general, the choices should at least be neutral, and in the Republican primaries, when everyone watching is to the right of the LSM, they should be downright conservative. I can’t see why Republicans think they have to accept whatever agenda-driven socialist is offered up, certainly in the general but especially in the primaries.


6 posted on 10/22/2012 11:26:03 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

I thik moderators are unnecessary—just have open mikes rigged to timers: time’s up, mike goes off.


7 posted on 10/22/2012 11:28:47 AM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
It's just another "tell"....that the GOPe is hand and hand with the DNC mostly behind closed doors...( Of course there are pic's of Hatch, Romney, etc..whooping it up with the Socialists..!! )

This is one of my pet peeves.....the GOP are pussies.

8 posted on 10/22/2012 11:31:17 AM PDT by Osage Orange ( Liberalism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SC_Pete

Sounds good.

Why agree to be bound by Marquess of Queensberry rules for yourself and your opponent gets to fight under UFC rules.


9 posted on 10/22/2012 11:31:52 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking; Darren McCarty
The answer is actually fairly simple. Democrats will not agree to these debates unless everything possible, especially the moderators, are stacked in their favor.

And Hofstra University, located in the "swing state" of New York being a hosting site for two consecutive election cycles? Why?

Republicans, especially Republican challengers, have no chance of reaching low information voters who only watch MSM outlets, in any other way. A Republican has to have the skill set to get through this bullsh*t smokescreen and reach these voters directly. Ronald Reagan definitely had that skill set. Mitt Romney? We shall see.

But he only begin to make this a real horserace after the first debate.

10 posted on 10/22/2012 11:38:21 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: george76

11 posted on 10/22/2012 11:42:36 AM PDT by Carl Vehse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

I DETEST Schieffer ... and Obama. As much as I want to hear how Romney handles things, I don’t think I can bear to watch tonight. I know a couple of other people (will vote Romney) who are bailing on this last debate .... same reasons - don’t want to hear Obama lie and Schieffer enable/support/spin Left for Obama and watch Romney cut off, shorted on time, sabotaged, etc. It’s all just quite disgusting.


12 posted on 10/22/2012 11:44:14 AM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76

Whoever agreed to him as a moderator in the GOP, should be held responsible. I’m sick of these idiots.


13 posted on 10/22/2012 11:49:58 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
"What gets me is why these candidates agree to this. "

Debates generally favor the incumbent. If there were no debates, Romney would lose because he would have little chance to speak to Americans in his own voice, and the DNC/MSM combine would have almost complete freedom to define him.

So the incumbent (Obama) would have preferred NOT to debate, but not debating makes him look like a chicken, so the Dems submitted to it even though there is little upside potential, unless the challenger makes a fool of himself.

So the incumbent has the upper hand in any debate negotiations.

14 posted on 10/22/2012 11:54:50 AM PDT by cookcounty ("When I speak, I say what I mean and I mean what I say!" ---Joe Biden, 10/11/2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
"Raddatz? Crowley? Schieffer? Are you nuts? "

That's bad, but not as bad as Gwen Ifill in 2008, who had a book in the works on Obama to be released after the election, which amounted to a $500,000 bet on his victory.

15 posted on 10/22/2012 11:57:49 AM PDT by cookcounty ("When I speak, I say what I mean and I mean what I say!" ---Joe Biden, 10/11/2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

From what I understand, both parties are given a list of names they can chose from: Here is the list:

1. Hugo Chavez
2. Chris Matthews
3. Martha Radditz
4. Bill Mahrer
5. Fidel Castro
6. Van Jones
7. Candy Crowley
8. Bob Shiefer
9. Walter Cronkite
10. Peter Jennings


16 posted on 10/22/2012 12:00:53 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

LOL, you are probably right. The GOP just needs to say no and start raising Cain for a fair debate venue for a change. They can go an election w/o a presidental debate if need be. The Left media is unprofessional and should be taken out.


17 posted on 10/22/2012 12:12:26 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

Yeah, and that was just the republicans choices, here are the dems:

1. Rush Limbaugh
2. Andrew Brietbart
3. Candy Crowley
4. Mark Levin
5. Sean Hannity
6. Martha Raddatz
7. Nancy Reagan
8. Bob Shiefer
9. Ann Coulter
10. Laura Inghram

So you see, this is how they all agreed to the chosen moderators.


18 posted on 10/22/2012 12:22:40 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

These events are always coordinated between the media and the RAT campaign. Let the RATS submit 50 questions and the Pubbies submit 50 questions, with 10 from each picks at random from the cookie jar. they can agree to opening and closing, followup procedures ahead of time—again, when the time is up, the microphone goes dead. Doesn’t matter if you are a slow speaker—too bad. ;((


19 posted on 10/22/2012 12:23:45 PM PDT by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

No, I don’t “get’ it. No one says liberals get to be the bosses over the GOP. Tell liberals to screw off and demand what you want.


20 posted on 10/22/2012 12:40:55 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: george76
A very telling and informative post. Mr Schieffer may be pondering his stance at this very moment. One, if he is that biased and one sided, it could be seized on as yet another put up job. Two, if he endeavors to be fair, it may hamper his man, who absolutely needs this one to win. Yes, Mr Shieffer is not in a comfortable position.

Always remember his ethics when he drove a distressed and distraught Lee Harvey Oswald's mother to Dallas. Her son accused of murdering the then president. He later has stated "I always wore a snap brim hat to look like a detective". He posed as one, to get the jump on the competition.

He could consider this interview as his "masterpiece" and then retire. Time will tell.

21 posted on 10/22/2012 1:38:48 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: george76
Days before his announced retirement from regular news coverage, Brinkley made a rare on-air mistake during evening coverage of the 1996 presidential election, at a moment when he thought they were on commercial break. One of his colleagues asked him what he thought of Bill Clinton's re-election. He called Clinton "a boor" and added, "The next four years will be filled with pretty words, and pretty music, and a lot of goddamn nonsense!"

I wonder if David held similar views on his peers in the media like Bob for instance...

22 posted on 10/22/2012 10:03:34 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Loud Mime
Earlier I read this from MM’s site. Good stuff bump.

lol, sounds like Michelle Malkin has someone in mind for a "more diverse" moderator -- her.

I'd suggest Brit Hume, Laura Ingraham, Tom Sowell, and Star Parker.

23 posted on 10/23/2012 12:10:20 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
[Your source] Brinkley made a rare on-air mistake during evening coverage of the 1996 presidential election, at a moment when he thought they were on commercial break. One of his colleagues asked him what he thought of Bill Clinton's re-election. He called Clinton "a boor" and added, "The next four years will be filled with pretty words, and pretty music, and a lot of goddamn nonsense!"

I'd say old David Brinkley, whom my late, sainted dad thought the world of and trusted far more than the pompous Cronkite (Dad's bullshit detector always worked just fine!), pretty well nailed Slick Willie, except that he was overoptimistic about the next four years, LOL!

God, I'm so glad my poor old dad -- an assistant prosecutor's son -- didn't live to see Slick and Beast in the White House. He had radar for trashy, self-referential, basically criminal adventurers like them, and he hated people like that.

s And a narcissistic, bottom-feeding deviant like Barky? OMG ....

24 posted on 10/23/2012 12:21:47 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MissMagnolia

For the very reasons you’ve described, that is also why I have not watched any of the debates. I would be grossly irritated by watching the “moderators” slant the playing field in favor of Obama.

Worse yet, I would be even more incensed by Obama’s non-sensical bloviating answers to almost any question asked of him.


25 posted on 10/23/2012 6:52:53 AM PDT by MplsSteve (General Mills is pro-gay marriage! Boycott their products!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MplsSteve

I “cheated” .... I had the TV on behind me and was watching the Power Line open thread (would rather have been on FR) & Dick Morris. Initially, I was pretty depressed because I expected a “stronger” Mitt, especially when Libya came up. It took me 20 - 30 minutes to ‘figure it out’ and then I started laughing. As awful as it was to hear Obama blah blah blah, every word just made him sound/look worse and worse. Romney got in his punches and there were a couple of good ones ... really good ones. For a good roundup of the punches, you can read them here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/10/the-knock-out-punches.php

On Benghazi, I think the episode with Candy Crowley showed Romney which way the wind was going to blow if he tried to tangle with Obama directly. Of course, I am outraged beyond words with what happened as are many Americans; however, Obama was going to be impossible to pin down on that subject ... a friend of mine uses the term “slicker than eel snot” and I think that is a great description. I’m sure as Romney and his advisors tried to figure out a debate strategy, it became more and more obvious that they were not going to “win” on that issue and in fact, with Obama being the incumbent President, they would probably not even get to a draw. Romney is still a private citizen ... and Obama has a distinct advantage as the incumbent .

I think Romney played it perfectly - rope-a-doped Obama big time. Obama was staring at Romney, I think trying to figure out what was going on! I’m sure 3/4 of Obama’s time at Camp David was spent trying to figure out if MR says ‘this’ on Benghazi, we’ll say ‘that’ and if he says ‘that’, we’ll say ‘this’. Wasted time, big time. As the debate went on, Obama got snarkier, more petty and very diminished. Most folks agree Romney was calm, cool, collected, knowledgeable and Presidential. Chris Wallace and a few others said it looked like Romney was the president & Obama the challenger. I’m glad I listened .... glanced at the TV a few times (seeing Obama blah blah is almost unbearable). Schieffer, to my surprise, was VERY even-handed .... he tried a ‘gotcha’ once at least, maybe twice, and Romney handled it perfectly - made him look even more suited to be President. It was a GREAT evening for Romney overall - if Obama “won” (marginally) the debate, he lost the war.


26 posted on 10/23/2012 7:13:29 AM PDT by MissMagnolia (Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't. (M.Thatcher))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson