This is a question by question review of the four Nixon-Kennedy debates from 56 years ago. How does the quality of question compare to the questions of today? Do you see any bias in the questions? Do you agree or disagree with my assessment of the questions?
Finally, notice how the moderators and questioners were all from different organizations. Do you think that affects the dynamic of the debates?
-PJ
None are the Fox moderators are real journalist
Mr. Trump, you have called women dogs. Rating: 0
Trump’s response: Only Rosie O’Donnell. Rating: Out of the ball park
56 years ago and it seems like yesterday.
(Sigh)
.
I’ll say this, old Dwight Eisenhower really threw Nixon under the bus during that campaign.
Well, you’re on the right track. Now just total up the results of the Nixon-Kennedy Debates and compare them to the results of any recent “debate” to really see the contrast.
You put some hard work in that. If it s original work of yours I suggest you copyright it immediately. I see things get lifted off of FR frequently enough to know journalists use material and original thought from FR.
Excellent rating system!
I encourage you to continue it. It is a simple and wise way of rating “debates” (which today bear no relation to the meaning of the word).
It’s not an exaggeration to say that if it were in book form, covering many elections, I would buy it.
I’d like to see a debate with no “gotcha” and no “gimme” questions. It should be about the candidates and the issues, with the candidates, not journalists challenging each other where appropriate. We should not see journalists combing through everything candidates from the other side have ever said to set them up - that is more appropriate for an interview format, but even there only if it is done to both sides.
Excellent. Any chance you will do one for the primary debate that Reagan skipped? (He regretted listening to his campaign manager on that score and attended all subsequent debates)
Wonderful stuff you should do this with Lincoln/Douglas, debates.
Excellent work, PJToo!
The rotation of the journalists, and focus on issues really stood out; it’s interesting to note that the bias, or spin, was definitely in there, although the questioners at least tried to bury it.
Also, I support Fhios’ suggestion in post #8.
Bump