Criticsm of George Stephanopoulos are not valid

[question everything]

Yes, he started his career with the Clinton White House, but he did leave in disgust and has been an open critic of both of them.

[pdxmom]

1. That doesn't make him any less of a shoddy journalist. All criticism

is valid. I believe that was Georgie's point in trying to justify his horrendous hit job last night.

[jgraz]

2. You mean ALL criticisms? Cuz I hear he has some really disgusting nose hair.

[question everything]

11. No, only his behavior during the debate... if you want to be smart

about this..

[jgraz]

23. His behavior during the debate was despicable, starting with his taking dictation from Hannity

In any true journalistic organization, he would be cleaning out his desk today.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. So does that mean he must be immune from any criticism?

His gotcha "journalism" performance totally sucked ass, regardless of any possible motivation he might or might not have had regarding the Clintons.

[SCDem]

4. Lapel pins are not debate worthy matter

Will offer mounds of criticism freely - as freely as the inane, archaic, non-essential questions are asked!

[question everything]

17. The Republicans have been circulating emails about Obama's lapel pin

about him not genuflect during the singing of the National Anthem about his being Muslim, etc.

I think that these issues have to be aired, because people will continue the whispering campaign and these are the worse.

I don't say that Obama should come out with another major speech, the way he did with Rev. Wright, but he should know that this is a smear campaign and facing it out in public is the best way to handle this.

And I think that he handled these topics quite well yesterday. He should be prepared with a quick, short reply to dispose of such questions.

[SeattleGirl]

24. His short reply should be, "Why don't you ask me questions that

actually matter to the American public?"

[jackson_dem]

55. See Dukakis, Michael

[Hissyspit]

5. ABC Asks Questions Fed By Sean Hannity

http://www.http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/17/steph-hannity-audio

ABC News Democratic presidential candidates debate was co-moderated by George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson, but the unseen influence of Fox News' Sean Hannity was also on stage.

Hannity, who for months has been aggressively pushing a story about Barack Obama's connections to a former member of a radical anti-Vietnam 1970s organization called the Weather Underground, interviewed Stephanopoulos on his radio show on Tuesday, where he pressed the ABC host to ask Obama about this: HANNITY: There are two questions that I don't think anybody has asked Barack Obama, and I don't know if this is going to be on your list tomorrow. One is -- the only time he's ever been asked about his association with Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist from the Weather Underground who on 9/11 of all days in the New York Times was saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I don't think we did enough." When asked about it by the Politico, David Axelrod said that they have a friendly relationship, and that they had done a number of speeches together and that they sat on a board together. Is that a question you might ask? STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm taking notes right now. HANNITY: September 11, 2001 of all days, there was an article in the New York Times. And there are a number of quotes about Bill Ayers. The Politico had in there the comments from David Axelrod.

In the debate last night, Stephanopoulos asked a question that mirrored almost word-for-word what Hannity pressed him to ask: STEPHANOPOULOS: A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough." An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

[question everything]

9. Do you think that such questions would not be asked in a McCain-Obama

debate?

We saw how Kerry was Swift boated. Obama would be even more riped, having run only one easy national campaign.

So he'd better be prepared.

[uponit7771]

6. The questions were still diconnected from pivatol issues of our time no matter who he worked for

[FrenchieCat]

7. So why in the fuck wasn't Stephanopoulos wearing his flag pin

when Obama was asked about his.

And why his Obama "association" with some guy sooo important, but Hillary's association to Stephan not important in the realm of conflict of interest.

So I'm still gonna criticize him. And I won't even ask for your opinion!

[kentuck]

8. It depends...

Since the National Constitutional Center was the "co-sponsor" of the debate and its Chairman is George H. W. Bush, how much input did George Stephanopoulos in choosing the questions? Did they share in picking the questions to be asked. If so, George may not be so innocent?

[anonymous171]

10. Because being Hannity's personal mouthpiece is so professional.

[Stephanie]

12. Who am I supposed to believe, you or my lying eyes?

[Zachstar]

13. Um he took a question from a right wing talk show host.

So your topic sucks

[CakeGrrl]

14. Ironic OP considering the OP's handle

So now dissenting opinions need to be stifled? Why should anyone treat with kid gloves a "moderator" who took dictation from Sean f'ing Hannity?

[jgraz]

25. This is par for the course.

[DJ13]

15. Any REAL journalist would have recused himself to eliminate...

....any potential conflict of interest questions.

Besides, he and BILL had the falling out, not Hillary.

[Armstead]

16. Well, if that's true ALL THE MORE REASON he shouldn;t have been the moderator

[bhikkhu]

18. He made an ass of himself last night. That's valid.

[murielm99]

26. Both moderators were asses.

I did not see the debate, but I spent some time today watching clips and reading. The debates will not be any good until they give them back to the League of Women Voters. People should be pressuring the news organizations for that, regardless of whom they support.

[bhikkhu]

30. NPR has managed good debates over the years too.

I am entirely through with television news myself - I don't see even a remnant of the integrity and care it had in years past.

[murielm99]

32. NPR is not what it was.

I listen to NPR sometimes during the day. Often, I get angry at the right-wing slant on things and turn off the radio. None of our media is trustworthy enough any more to moderate the debates.

I watch the local news if I am home. I sometimes need to be current on those stories. There have been several times that I have e-mailed or called them, too, for their bias. I am always polite, so I get prompt answers.

[Johnny__Motown]

19. Got any links to his "criticism"? here is one for you... they look kinda chummy to me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saBU6ux0hsQ

[SeattleGirl]

20. Totally disagree. I think he completely deserves criticism for asking

about whether Rev. Wright loves his country as much as Obama, about rehashing "bitter-gate," and most especially, for asking Obama why he doesn't wear a FUCKING FLAG PIN!

That's despicable, and it is NOT worthy of someone who calls themselves a "journalist".

[donheld]

21. You've got a lot of nerve. You have no right to tell anyone what criticism they

can or cannot make. He may or may not have left in disgust. That doesn't mean he is above criticism

[RBInMaine]

22. The corporate SCUMBAG took his cues from HANNITY. TO HELL WITH HIM !!

He took cues from the a corporate right wing propaganda slime bucket of the most sickening order.
He can go right straight to hell in a handbasket.

[UALRBSofL]

27. And you know what I read that OKS was the ring leader of the negative emails to ABC

And that they were pissed because they thought they had picked the horse and decided to negatively attack Clinton and since Obama has been getting a lot of negative publicity they were none to happy. However, from what I understand, abc is aware of the KOS negative email drive and they are not giving the emails any time.

[JimGinPA]

28. I Guess You Don't Really "question everything" After All

:eyes:

[Tinksrival]

29. He accused a man of a crime he was never convicted for.

Instead of doing a little research he relied on Hannity and Hillary ax men.
You can learn more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5553025

[Zavulon]

31. I'd rather stamp out Hannity's questions now than have them brought up in October.

Regardless of who the questions come from, they're either valid and worthy of an answer, or invalid and deserving of being stamped out.

Let Hannity do his worst - look at the asshole HE'S supporting. We can return the favor as soon as our nomination is settled. If GS wants to ask them, he'd doing us a favor by bringing them up now instead of at the last minute.

[jgraz]

33. So journalists jobs should be to pre-swiftboat our candidates?

How does that make sense?

[Zavulon]

34. I'm not sure what questions you're referring to, but if they're truly "swiftboat" questions

are you assuming they'll never be asked because the Repugs are so well-known for fighting fair?

What exactly are we afraid of, anyway? Obama can take any shots thrown at him, as he has been doing for a while. Hillary might not be able to, but to be honest that doesn't break my heart at all.

[jgraz]

35. It's not the job of journalists to do the Repigs' attacking for them.

[Zavulon]

43. So what is their job? Throwing softballs?

Again, I don't know what questions you're referring to, but after every debate there's always at least a few DUers saying the questions were unfair, attacking and "swiftboatish." In the debates I've watched I haven't heard anything I thought was really unfair, but to know it from this board, any question tougher than "Can you explain to us how you became such a wonderful senator with such a perfect voting record?" will be pilloried in DU by at least a few people.

Politics is a tough business. If our candidates can't handle tough questions, we need different candidates. Further, do we want Repugs to be thrown the same sort of softballs you seem to be insisting on for us? Or do you want only tough questions to come from Republicans so that we can whine, cry and hold our breath until our face turns blue because it's THEM being unfair? Or is it just best that only our side get softballs even though the Repugs will then keep up their "liberal bias" claims?

Our side can take a lot more of what you call "swiftboating" than the other side can, so why not take the gloves off and slug it out instead of getting our feelings bruised whenever moderators don't let our guys skip through with no effort at all?

As far as I'm concerned, moderators can and should do their worst to both sides. If candidates can't handle a few hard knocks at this level, they don't belong in the WH anyway. It doesn't seem to me that this debate did anything to hurt Obama or Hillary, but if you care to give me examples of the questions that have offended you so, I'm all ears.

[jgraz]

45. Their job is to inform the public

Asking bullshit questions does nothing to inform anyone. It just turns politics into some perverse version of American Gladiators.

[Zavulon]

47. I looked up the transcript.

If this bothers you now, wait until the nomination is confirmed. If anything, the only thing that "bothered" me was that Obama got hit harder than Hillary and I think the shots, no matter how swiftboatish or softballish, should be relatively equal.

If candidates - ours or theirs - can't take the heat, they shouldn't be running. Fine, the questions weren't pleasant, but to write them all off as "bullshit" when they're going to come anyway makes me wonder what everyone's definition of a "bullshit" question is.

I'd rather see the precedent for such a tone set now, because I see no reason to be civil to McStain when it's his turn to face the heat. He has a lot more problems than either of our people do.

[jgraz]

56. Where is this so-called heat coming from? It's coming from the craptastic MSM

The reason Obama is going to be asked these questions is that the media are not doing their jobs. It's like beating your kid so he'll be tougher the next time you beat him.

[Zavulon]

57. No offense, but what exactly is the media's job here?

Is it to ask questions that have been covered repeatedly and hide the so-called "nasty" questions, or is it to bring it all out on the table? If you want our people treated like fine china, keep in mind that the MSM is going to do the same to McCain, leaving a bunch of people capable of being sold on the "don't change horses in midstream" bullshit to vote for a crusty old warmongering asshole for the same reasons they "gave" a second term to the current Fuckwad-in-Chief (FINC).

Please, tell me a.) what the media's job is and b.) what questions are acceptable in your eyes. If possible, please show me where the line is drawn as well - what's acceptable, and what's not?

I honestly mean you no offense, I'm just proud of our people for being able to stand up and take their shots. The sort of kinder, gentler questioning I sense you favor will in fact favor the Repug with more holes in his record than Obama and Hillary have combined, so I want flames thrown at every candidate. The more, the better. When the smoke clears, OUR nominee will be standing, NOT theirs.

Doesn't it bother you that McCain has repeatedly called for a "civil" / "respectful" tone in the elections (as an example, please see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3115823)? It seems to be what you're calling for, and it only benefits the guy with more to hide. Screw that - I want dung flung at every wall. The fact that our people are handling it now is good, not bad.

Edited to dig up one of my old threads, linked above

[jgraz]

I don't know how I can be more clear. The job of the media is to inform the public

Their job is not to ask "nasty" questions, or "nice" questions. It's not to be civil or uncivil. It's to get answers to questions that will keep the public informed on important issues.

If you think that Obama's choice of jewelry is more important than the fact that our top officials have approved torture, then in your eyes, the media is doing a fine job. I have a different perspective.

[jgraz]

58. I don't know how I can be more clear. The job of the media is to inform the public

Their job is not to ask "nasty" questions, or "nice" questions. It's not to be civil or uncivil. It's to get answers to questions that will keep the public informed on important issues.

If you think that Obama's choice of jewelry is more important than the fact that our top officials have approved torture, then in your eyes, the media is doing a fine job. I have a different perspective.

[Zavulon]

59. You can be more clear by making some sense.

Are you saying that there should be no televised debates? Are you saying that the media has no business asking questions at all? How does the media get answers without asking nasty or nice questions? More specifically, if questions are acceptable at all, what are the alternatives to nasty or nice questions? "Neutral" questions, personally screened by you?

Once again I'd like to ask you what questions, if any, are acceptable, and where the line is drawn. If you're so convinced that you can't be clearer, you should have no problem coming up with a few examples better than the torture one. The torture question has been addressed in the media many times, so why should it be brought up again? Or, a better question: what could be possibly learn from hearing that question brought up again other than Obama and Hillary both think torture is wrong? How would the media be "informing" us with that?

If you even approve of debates at all, are you saying that all questions should be personally approved by you and that these same questions should be asked in each and every one of the seemingly countless debates we've had so far? I honestly don't understand where you're coming from, and simply droning on with "the job of the media is to inform the public" doesn't clear anything up other than the fact that you get hypersensitive if a question doesn't meet your tough standards of "informing the public."

You say "the job of the media is to inform the public," and then claim you don't see how you can be any more clear. I don't see how you could be any more vague. I've asked repeatedly for examples of where the line is drawn, and the only example you can give me is a question all of us already know the answer to.

All I can say is to stock up in Kleenex before the shortage hits. If questions about lapel pins can throw you into such a tizzy, this campaign is going to drive you nuts and reduce you to running around repeating "the job of the media is to inform the public."

Oh, by the way: the job of the media, like it or not, is to sell papers, magazines and advertising space. The way they generally do it is by informing the public, but believe it or not, items about Ashlee Simpson's possible pregnancy and Obama's stance on lapel pins is actually information to the public, which you already know - so if you respond to this, spare me vague drivel like "the job of the media is to inform the public" and answer what I've asked more than once: where do you draw the line, and what questions (if any) are acceptable? I'd really love to see a debate under your rules.

[undeterred]

36. Left in disgust? He left to become a high class call girl.

He turned his back on the Democratic party for a price. He's a whore. :rofl:

[jasmine621]

37. No one complained when he raked Hillary and Bill over the coals.

Now Reich is jumping on the kool-aid bandwagon. The Clinton's were never good at picking loyalists. I am surprised at Reich, though. I know he was upset with Clinton about welfare reform but both he and Richardson gained their renown by being members of Clinton's cabinet. The Dem party will never recover from Obama's ambition.

[featherman]

38. Hahahahahaha... he's working for McCain, not Clinton...ABC...duh

[Vinca]

39. George is not a journalist. He ought to be covering Britney and

Lindsey on Entertainment Tonight.

[AllentownJake]

40. I don't care if he worked for FDR

He still did a terrible job on Wednesday.

[BeyondGeography]

41. He used the same reasoning in 1992 that Obama is now using to defuse media-inspired distractions

Now he gets paid to do the very thing he once stood against.

That's called selling out. Excuse us for noticing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

42. You have the reasoning of a toad in a pot of warming water.

You would flunk logic. What an embarrassing OP

[lastliberalintexas]

44. Perhaps not as a Clinton surrogate, but as a part of the Corporate

Media, you bet your bippy they are valid. He and Russert and Blitzer and others of their ilk are mostly vile, vacuous creatures who are only interested in self-promotion and/or promoting their network owners' agenda. If the media shills in this country are not worthy of criticism then no one is.

[my3boyz]

46. Mmmhmmm..it was perfectly okay for him to go to Hannity to ask for questions and use them. Yeah

he was totally fair to Hillary and Barack.

[bhikkhu]

48. He is a part of the problem.

A 19 percenter, if you will. 81% of the country now believes we are "going in the wrong direction". Stephanopolous is manning his spiteful little wheel against the tide.

[grantcart]

49. I believe that this thread absolutely destroys Stephanopoulos and Gibson completely

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5575573

[casus belli]

50. He should have stuck to failing at politics. n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

51. He did "gore is a liar" and smeared Edwards. He is a tool in every sense of the word.

[last_texas_dem]

52. The latter fact that you mention

is why I find the praise that some Clinton supporters on here are suddenly heaping upon him to be ridiculous. Wasn't he commonly casually referred to as "Judas" by many Clinton fans on DU?

[Emit]

53. Criticism of all media talking heads is valid

all the time

[intaglio]

54. You mean criticising him for racist questions is not valid?

I think it is valid

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You have a very cool style when you're doing those town meetings where you're out on the campaign trail, and I wonder, how much of that is tied to your race?

Thread here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5570007

[NC_Nurse]

60. Well, he still sucks.