Posted on 10/18/2012 6:43:05 AM PDT by tobyhill
CNN’s Candy Crowley has always seemed like a tough, sharp and relatively fair reporter. So when she said earlier this week she was going to take an active moderator role in last night’s debate, that didn’t immediately seem like a bad thing. There’s no problem with an impartial moderator keeping the candidates on topic and pressing them with follow-ups.
But by the end of the night, it was clear Crowley had done damage to her own reputation of objectivity. It wasn’t just because of the Benghazi question, either. Matt Latimer lays out the instances of bias at the Daily Beast:
By far the biggest loser of the debate (after my former boss, George W., that is) was Candy Crowley. She is one of the most seasoned political reporters in Washington, but she came very close to becoming a participant in the debate. At some points she almost lost control, then seemed to interrupt Romney more often than Obama. The president also was given more time to speak overall. Ms. Crowley’s decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Party’s media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that moment—you’ll be seeing it again and again for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
Obama wasn’t “on all the questions,” in fact he failed to answer most of them.
This debate was the next nail in the coffin for him. He won nothing.
One can’t lose something they don’t have to begin with. In my opinion, by no strectch of the imagination, was she ever a journalist. What she is, again in my opinion, and she fulfilled that to a tee,is a whore for obama and the Democrat Party.
Do tell? If *that* obviously non-objective partisan hack is what passes for a 'seasoned political reporter', then the field of journalism is deader than a doornail...
the infowarrior
Except to his worshipers.
I would suggest that the transcript episode is indicative of how he managed to graduate from Harvard. Someone else wrote his papers and took tests for him.
Moderator picks up a piece of paper and says “he’s right.”
Why did Obama say “check the transcript” and Crowley just happened to have one sitting right in front of her? What are the odds?
What are the odds? The odds are very good when the moderator and one of the debaters are working as a team.
It didn’t work.
The “debate” has him sinking in the polls, and made Romney look better than reality. The chatter is all about Obama’s lie in the debate, and foreign intelligence failures.
All he needs now is to pull a “Carter” by trying to use the military to save his skin. Will he do it?
Crowley did what the NYTimes does...
Tell the LIE on page one...
Apologize for lie on page 46... the next day.. or next week..
After the debate she apoligized after everybody turned their TV off.. or changed channel..
Relatively fair reporter seeks work,have knee pads will travel.
Brings to mind a song by jazzer Les McCann called "Compared To What"
I don’t doubt for a second that this was orchestrated and rehearsed. Knowing how biased the media are doesn’t shock me.
What does shock me is that they would make it so obvious? How did they think they would get away with this? Did they think no one would notice that she just happened to have the relevant speech transcript in front of her?????
I am wondering if 0bama blew their cover due to his incredible stupidity. I wonder if maybe he wasn’t supposed to say anything about the transcript. I wonder if his choom-fogged brain couldn’t resist mentioning something that was supposed to be a secret. I wonder if Crowley’s flustered reaction was due to 0bama blabbing something he wasn’t supposed to say and she had to try to recover from that.
This should be grounds for a formal complaint with the Debate Commission. New standardes for any moderator must be put in place. These last 2 debates have had any semblance of fairness destroyed. Liberal bias by a moderator is particularly onorous. The Republican committee must demand an end to any form of advocacy moderator. The role, if there is to be a moderator, must be absolutely limited to a set number of questions submitted by both sides of the debate, asked in turn until they are exhausted. The role of the moderator other than reading the questions submitted by the debators is to keep time on the candidates. Both prior moderators failed to do so and granted substantial benefits to the democrat candidate.
In truth, the whole structure of the so called debates is belittling and demeaning to people we intend to entrust open dialogue with world leaders. It smacks of high school debate slub tactics in which the teacher applies rigid standatds of political correctness to the student’s responses.
If the Republican leadership had any sense of principle or dignity tit would demand an end to this outrageous sideshow behavior.
We need 2 candidates sitting down across from each other having a conversation, nothing less is dignified or worthy of the high office they intend to hold.
Dentists ought to sue, because that’s gonna put a lot of people off of candy.
Who are the "Debate Commission"?? Once upon a time, the debates were overseen by the "League of Women Voters", which was by no means neutral.
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.