Brian Williams is a complete and absolute bust as a moderator

[ClusterFreak]

Holy shit..it's like he ticks off question after question from his prepared list. No follow up, no challenging anything that is said. How about pressing Santorum about that wingnut woman at his rally today who said Obama is an avowed Muslim etc.? Ricky boy turned mute when she said that and when she said something like Obama wasn't legally entitled to be president. This is the news story of the day, just as the ABC interview with Newt's second wife was the story of last Thursday's debate.

Brian is a nice man but as I long suspected is also someone who does not like to make waves. And therefore, wholly unqualified to moderate this debate.

[Pisces]

1. I disagree, he followed up with Mitt on 12 tax returns when Mitt tried to give a rambling answer and

dodged. It is the lack off audience participation that is making this debate slower and less energetic.

[oberliner]

2. Well I agree with you

Though I'd say they've all been pretty weak.

[stevenleser]

3. They are certainly not going to press things now after what happened to John King

Since as moderator you cannot attack back, you basically become a punching bag.

[oberliner]

4. John King was pathetic

Backed down - called him "sir" - no follow up question.

He could've really followed up there and blew it.

[stevenleser]

6. He had to back down. Your job as a moderator isnt to attack one of the candidates.

If he had kept going, he would have been roundly criticized.

[oberliner]

7. No, he did not have to back down. It would not have been an "attack"

He could have simply re-framed the question.

"Mr. Gingrich, you have talked about the importance of family values and moral leadership, therefore, I think it is entirely appropriate for you to speak on this issue that clearly reflects upon your character."

There was no need for "yes, sir" or "our network didn't run the story" or other weak-willed responses as John King gave.

As moderator the job is to ask challenging questions and to press for answers to those questions.

He did not do his job in that regard. He asked a pathetic, open-ended question: "Is there anything you want to say...?" and allowed himself to be brow-beaten without any attempt to get a serious answer to a legitimate question (or at least to pose it in such a way as to make it legitimate).

[stevenleser]

9. The moderator is not supposed to be the story, the candidates are. Your idea for how it should have

gone down puts the moderator front and center instead of the candidate(s). John King astutely realized he was in danger of being the story and in fact was for a moment. It wasnt his fault, it was a dirty trick of Gingrichs', but it was his responsibility to take himself out of the story.

[oberliner]

11. I agree with the first part of what you said

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't think the moderator would have been the story if he had simply asked the question in an intelligent way.

I think the story would have been that Newt is a major hypocrite.

Instead the story was that Newt "took on the liberal media".

By posing the question the way he did, John King made himself part of the story.

Had he posed it the way I am suggesting the focus would have rightfully been on Newt and his lack of moral and indeed ideological consistency.

[elleng]

5. Not his job; he's conducting a civil discussion/debate.

Tomorrow, challenges should come.

[oberliner]

8. His job is to ask intelligent/challenging questions and solicit answers

If those answers are dubious, it is also the job of a good moderator to follow up or at least give the other candidates an opportunity to do so.

Not to simply read from a script and go on to the next unrelated question.

He was perfectly happy to allow the back-and-forth on the tax returns and whatnot, why not on the more substantial issues?

[ClusterFreak]

10. Exactly. It is like he phoned it in.

Zero followup...

Early on Newt said there were at least four things Romney had wrong, but he didn't want to go into it....and Brian just let him skate on it. What four things, Newt? All the pundits I saw after tried to say the candidates were tired...well I would say the moderator was detached. Not letting the audience cheer or boo or anything also contributed to the overall sleepy, boring tone.

[oberliner]

12. Yes I agree

And he also seemed just as phony as the folks on the stage.

[Major Hogwash]

13. I like Brian Williams. At least he's not Tom Brokejaw.

Tom sounded like he had a bag of marbles in his mouth when he talked.
And then sometimes, for no apparent reason at all, his voice would suddenly go really high, leaving you to wonder if he had just shot one out his ass!

[ClusterFreak]

14. LOL!

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. Brian Williams use to listen to Rush every day

From the December 26, 2004, interview:

WILLIAMS: I do listen to Rush. I listen to it from a radio in my office, or depending on my day, if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush. And he will tell you I've been listening for years. I think it's my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due, because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them.

[...]

Rush said to millions of Americans, you have a home. Come with me. For three hours a day you can listen and hear the like-minded calling in from across the country, and I'll read to you things perhaps you didn't see that are out there. I think Rush gave birth to the FOX News Channel. I think Rush helped to give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the Contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster.



http://mediamatters.org/research/200501240007

I didn't see the debate but the guy is what you have to deal with
just so you know.