Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WaPo: Debate Moderators Were "Shoddy" "Despicable" and "Slanted Against Obama"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:27 AM
Original message
WaPo: Debate Moderators Were "Shoddy" "Despicable" and "Slanted Against Obama"
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 07:28 AM by Stephanie

No kidding. Nice to see it in print.






http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?hpid=topnews

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC

By Tom Shales
Thursday, April 17, 2008; Page C01

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.

***

Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other's running mate, "to both of you," which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, "Don't all speak at once.

***

The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation.

Obama was right on the money when he complained about the campaign being bogged down in media-driven inanities and obsessiveness over any misstatement a candidate might make along the way, whether in a speech or while being eavesdropped upon by the opposition. The tactic has been to "take one statement and beat it to death," he said.

No sooner was that said than Gibson brought up, yet again, the controversial ravings of the pastor at a church attended by Obama. "Charlie, I've discussed this," he said, and indeed he has, ad infinitum. If he tried to avoid repeating himself when clarifying his position, the networks would accuse him of changing his story, or changing his tune, or some other baloney.

This is precisely what has happened with widely reported comments that Obama made about working-class people "clinging" to religion and guns during these times of cynicism about their federal government.

"It's not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won't be the last," said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks' trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on "the issues."

***

To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama. The director cut several times to reaction shots of such Clinton supporters as her daughter, Chelsea, who sat in the audience at the Kimmel Theater in Philly's National Constitution Center. Obama supporters did not get equal screen time, giving the impression that there weren't any in the hall. The director also clumsily chose to pan the audience at the very start of the debate, when the candidates made their opening statements, so Obama and Clinton were barely seen before the first commercial break.

At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Zachstar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. It was not a debate. I wish people would stop calling it that.
It was a sham. A bunch of crap that did nothing but help McCain in my view!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoesTo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
10. Not a DE-bate, an ABC-bate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unbowed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. You're right, it was a total sham. Quite the witch hunt.
The way they went after Obama and then wouldn't let him answer, he would have been justified in walking off the stage.

When they finally got to issues, they let Hillary give a speech in response to each question. But they interrupted Obama repeatedly. During one question, he was interrupted before he could answer the initial question with two other questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wonder what the Clintons have on Stephanopoulos? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. He's their buddy.

I've seen him in pro-Clinton action in panel discussions. He's
too obvious.

I didn't watch the debate (thank goodness). I'm done with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoesTo11 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. He was absolutely nothing and Bill Clinton made his career
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texas_indy Donating Member (432 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. They don't hve to have anything on them since he has always supported the Clintons....
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos


"Stephanopoulos was, along with David Wilhelm and James Carville, a leading member of the 1992 Clinton campaign. His role on the campaign is portrayed in the documentary film The War Room.<2> At the outset of Clinton's presidency, Stephanopoulos served as the de facto press secretary, briefing the press even though Dee Dee Myers was officially the White House Press Secretary. Later, he was moved to Senior Advisor on Policy and Strategy, when Dee Dee Myers began personally conducting the briefings and David Gergen was brought in as the new White House Communications Director. The move was largely viewed as a rebuke to Stephanopoulos' handling of public relations during the first six months of the Clinton Administration."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. He resigned from his position and wasn't happy w/Zippergate
or big dawg. How to square someone who did that and then gets talking points from Hannity? I'm not sure what his allegiances are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. I remember reading an article about him that he was the one bill
vented at. they called him bill's abused wife. shit head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qanda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vi5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. Honestly, how do they justify Stephanapolous as a mod?
How do you justify having someone who worked for and has a personal, political, and professional history with one of the two candidates (Yes, I know it was her husband but still the point is the same) be a moderator at a debate like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. snuffeluppagus was a Clinton stooge. The conflict of interest was huge.
Only a little worse then a Chris Matthew's hosted debate on the flip side, which is and would be bad enough as is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clovis Sangrail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. It was the National Enquirer on TV ... crap /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tribetime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I was thinking Jerry Springer but your take is better
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tribetime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
9. Big Kick& R thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
my3boyz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
12. Yeah, I thought members of the news team are supposed to be NEUTRAL..
at least according to Barbara Walters. I'm sure Barbara will call in sick today. She won't want to step foot on The View stage. Unless of course she wants to keep the discussion from going haywire. I wonder if ABC will even allow them to discuss it since it makes Charlie and George look like the pieces of shit that they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MagickMuffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. Tabloid drama, definitely NOT a debate
It's good to see other media outlets exposing this sham. Pitiful





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. and here is why..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks
I gave it the fifth recommend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
16. The fascist fuckwads should never work again.
ABC can kiss my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
19. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K Gardner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
20. There are 26 pages of responses to this article, most along the lines of
the below:

This socalled "debate" was the worst piece of tripe I've seen at a presidential level event. Shameless, biased moderators asking questions from the mouth of Sean Hannity and Mark Penn. ABC gets an F and I'll make a point of avoiding their progamming and Disney products for such a disgraceful display.
4/17/2008 1:15:25 AM
Recommend (14) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

mka193 wrote:
THANK YOU MR. SHALES. THIS WAS AWFUL. A TRAVESTY FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND I HAPPEN TO BE A HILLARY CLINTON SUPPORTER. I believe that this was a hit job on the Democratic party on behalf of the GOP.
4/17/2008 1:12:14 AM
Recommend (7) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

left_coast wrote:
With the garbage-level quality of the "moderating" and directing of this so-called debate, why should we look forward to yet another "debate"?
Thank you, Tom Shales, for being right on the money in your review.
4/17/2008 1:11:36 AM
Recommend (8) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

PrussianBlue1 wrote:
"Shoddy and despicable"--Mr. Shales is absolutely right. We shouldn't have debates if they are going to be this inane. Flag lapel pins? What some college professor we'd never heard of was doing forty years ago during the Vietnam War? I wanted to scream as minute after minute went by with the moderators trying to trip the candidates up over past, media-driven gaffes, when we are DROWNING IN PROBLEMS THAT WEREN'T EVEN ADDRESSED. Health care? The environment? Climate change? The rise of China? Sorry, we've got to delve into municipal firearms laws and those flag lapel pins. A debate like this could only add to the contempt so many people around the world feel for "stupid, insular" Americans and our busted political system.

And note to the remaining Hillary-supporters: Sorry, folks, but Barack held up against the joint McCain-Clinton forces and two shallow journalists and gave nothing away. He's still going to win the nomination.
4/17/2008 1:09:32 AM
Recommend (11) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

AverageJane wrote:
I thought I was watching Hannity from Fox News leading the debate. How much lower can you go than that?
4/17/2008 1:07:29 AM
Recommend (9) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

fgerard wrote:
Unbelievsble! ABC's Gibson and Stephanopoulos might just as well of signed on as Mark Penn's assistants, given the one-side inquisition they piled on Obama. However, facts are a terrible thing to dispute and recent polling shows Shrillary is basically not trusted by the public.

Kudos to Obama for responding to the inquisition like a professional, while Shrillary tried, to no avail, to drag this so-called debate into the gutter.

Admittadly, I am an Obama supporter, but many impartial observers were appalled at the performance of the moderators, who even made poor Couric look good.
Forrest Gerard


4/17/2008 1:04:34 AM
Recommend (10) Report Abuse Discussion Policy

kwakuazar wrote:
This was not a debate. It was an inquisition of Senator Obama. He was asked to compare his love for America to Rev. Wright's love for America. That is the height of madness!

It is almost as if they expect him to show that he is an american citizen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
23. And Clinton-lovers and rightwingers together LOVE it when the media is disgraceful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC