Posted on 10/19/2016 6:14:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
How many more broadcast bust-ups will it take before America finally decides to make its presidential election debates tolerable again? I can't take it anymore. Can you?
For the past three cycles -- 2008, 2012, and 2016 -- I've chronicled the depressing, systemic bias of left-leaning partisans whom the Commission on Presidential Debates routinely installs as "moderators." It would be one thing if these activists posing as journalists were upfront about their political preferences. But they continue to star in phony debate theater wearing their dime-store costumes of objectivity.
The even bigger farce? Masochistic Republican Party bosses let them get away with it year after year after year.
Note to President Obama: This is not "whining." This is truth-telling. I find it rather rich that the complainer-in-chief who spent two terms incessantly attacking Fox News and conservative talk radio is now wagging his waggy-licious finger at anyone else who bears grievances against hostile media and its enablers.
In 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates allowed liberal PBS anchor Gwen Ifill to serve as unfettered moderator for the sole vice presidential debate. As I reported at the time, Ifill had failed to disclose before the event that she had a book coming out on Jan. 20, 2009 -- a date that just happens to coincide with the inauguration of the next president of the United States -- titled "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama." The promotional material left no question about Ifill's perspective. She hyped Obama's campaign as "stunning" and marveled at his "bold new path to political power." She also used her access to author a hagiographic pop culture piece for Essence magazine about the Obama family.
When asked to respond to criticize about her ideological and financial conflicts of interest, Ifill acted like a true-blue leftist and played the race card.
This year's vice presidential debate "moderator" didn't fare much better. Billed as a "historic" choice because of her Filipino heritage, Elaine Quijano was a historic doormat for Clinton's babbling running mate, Tim Kaine. Her media cheerleaders, led by The New York Times' Nick Kristof, naturally invoked the gender card to defend her embarrassing passivity.
Another "diversity" moderator, Telemundo celebrity journalist Maria Celeste Arraras, known as "the Katie Couric of Spanish TV," soaked up nearly half a CNN GOP primary debate earlier this year representing "the Latino community" on issues such as Puerto Rico's bankruptcy.
2012, of course, was the year of Bitter Candy -- CNN's Candy Crowley. She notoriously injected herself into the second debate (a town hall debate that was supposed to spotlight citizens' questions) by arguing with then-GOP nominee Mitt Romney about Benghazi and running interference for Obama.
Crowley was just the latest Democratic plant at a CNN-sponsored election debate. The network has a long history of passing off partisan operatives as "ordinary people" and "undecided voters" during town halls while failing to disclose their political affiliations to viewers. Moreover, there's no telling how many CNN contributors are acting as moles for Democratic campaigns. We know of at least one. This week, CNN host Jake Tapper was forced to admit that a WikiLeaks-published email showing CNN contributor and DNC head Donna Brazile had tipped off the Clinton campaign in advance to town hall questions was "horrifying."
And four years ago, we also endured the spectacle of Clinton adviser-turned-ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos pushing the Democrats' "war on women" propaganda by pressing Republicans on a nonsense contraceptive ban.
Yet, the debate commission and the Republican National Committee keep drawing from the same tainted well of cloistered media personalities. Establishment journos Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC News were repeat moderators this year -- with disastrous results. Raddatz, another left-wing PBS alumna and Beltway fixture, created her own bitter Candy moment at the second presidential debate last week when she lost her marbles over Syria and scrapped with Donald Trump over Syria. He was right to call the townhall charade a "one on three" battle.
Actually, "one on three" is not quite accurate. As the Center for Public Integrity revealed this week, a whopping 96 percent of the nearly $400,000 in presidential campaign donations from "people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors -- as well as other donors known to be working in journalism" has gone to Hillary Clinton.
Wham! There's your fact-check of the year, my fellow journalists. I'm looking at you in particular, Washington Post reporter Chris Cillizza. Annoyed by mounting social media criticism of liberal reporters tilting their coverage, he tweeted this week: "Let me say for the billionth time: Reporters don't root for a side. Period."
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It's the fuel that sustains the Fourth Estate's undeserved superiority complex and monopoly over the debates. What would be so wrong with allowing open, transparent, informed partisan journalists from all sides of the political aisle a bite at the presidential debate apple? Abandon the pretenses. Put all the ideological cards on the table. Make the debates honest and tolerable again.
The problem isn't the partisan press. It's the poseur press.
As usual, I’m with Michelle one hundred percent.
I can’t even watch the debates anymore, owing to the obvious prejudice of the moderators and the sense of injustice they generate, as well as the slimy feel of being barfed on by the networks with their unsavory and obviously partisan machinations.
Ms. Malkin nails it in the third paragraph:
“Masochistic Republican Party bosses let them get away with it year after year after year. “
That is why this year is (finally) different.
The GOP has a man running, who actually wants to take them on. How long, have we waited for someone who stood up, for real.
I am very much looking forward to this election.
First one in many years, I am so excited about. For real.
Way to go Michelle.
Any Republican who would agree to the media-circus of these biased “debates” should be considered too stupid to run for president. NO DEBATES would be better than these debates have been, because even if the GOP candidate wins, the media will dig up dirt to obliterate the victory, as they did to Trump. Hopefully, there will be no Republican Party next time to cave to the Democrats. We desperately need another choice.
When I look down the road to “after the election” I see a number of possibilities with fluctuating probabilities. Only one contains a future of more of these phony debates and the probability of that future is dimming by the minute. Enjoy this one because, IMHO, it is the last.
Nailed it again, Love Michelle!
Lighten up guys, Chris Wallace will do his ‘John Harwood’ best.
Love that woman.
You can’t have her, she’s mine!
Trump loses, and I boycott all network TV forever. I’ve already canceled cable. So, I won’t see future debates unless they’re streamed. However, I’m hoping that the next debate I watch is as a Texan national in their first presidential debate.
President Trump needs to simply ditch the debates in 2020.
That being said, the Republicans have been nothing but either a bunch of total suckers, or else willing accomplices of the Dems.
Stupidity explains a lot (and the Republicans ARE the Stupid Party), but this level of stupidity over such a long period of time simply cannot be the explanation - it is “willing accomplices” IMHO.
There will be no more “debates.” There will be televised Media events disguised as “debates” between the UniParty’s pre-selected, bought-and-paid-for “candidates.” Political reality TV for the ignorant masses.
The New World Order.
The even bigger farce? Uniparty co-conspirator protected/elitist/political/criminal class assist each other.
/kabuki theater.
We stopped watching the Dog and Pony Show Debates way back. If this production is how people get their info to vote from I can understand how this country came off the rails. The debates are theater for the illegal immigrants who vote, cartoons they can understand.
I’m a lot more relaxed now that I’ve stopped watching national and local news for at least the last two months. I check the online sites for weather. I find it hard to forgive them for pushing Hillary and bashing Trump every chance they get. They’re destroying America. As for tonight’s debate, I don’t think I can sit thru Hillary’s bull. Good luck guys when she comes for your guns and your taxes soar to pay for illegals. Thank the dumb women who pass around screaming cat photos on Facebook with the caption Trump touched me, and giggle online over SNL getting Trump. I’ve unfriended a number of them.
If you have a smart phone you can also check your weather on it. Arcus is a great app and is the most accurate.
There is only one logical way to do a debate. Mano a mano, moderated only by a chess timer to control the microphones.Broadcast journaLIBs would never stand for that, so the only way it could be done would be online. Therefore, it should be done online. If, please God, Trump wins - and chooses to run for reelection in ’20 - he should preemptively demand that - and nothing else. NO moderator.
But of course, we know that the journaLIBS will be having an unprecedented meltdown if God blesses us with a Hillary defeat.
Why do we even need moderators for debates? Who the hell wants to hear them anyway? Flip a coin to see who speaks first. Turn that candidate’s microphone on for 2 minutes. At the end of that time, turn it off and turn on the other candidate’s mic for 2 minutes. Rinse and repeat for 90 minutes (or whatever time is agreed upon). Candidates can use their speaking time to talk about whatever they want, can question their opponent, whatever; no rules about what they can or can’t talk about.
There would be no question about bias in that format and you’d probably see candidates have more actual dialog with each othervabout issues rather than just trying to score soundbite moments.
That is about the stupidest post I have ever read. The moderators are there to ask the candidates questions and the candidates answer and reply to the questions.
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.