Let's document US media insipid, tepid and viscous debate coverage

[NV1962]

Unfortunately, I've been unusually busy yesterday all day until late last night - I looked forward to watch the debate and track reactions as it unfolded. So, once I finally could call it a working day, I watched the debate on C-SPAN, starting at about 11:30pm.

I watched it with an unfair advantage: at that time I already had a whiff of the prevailing mainstream opinion that it was a "tie." As the video and audio of the debate streamed on, I reached the conclusion that I was watching something completely different: in my opinion, Kerry successfully delivered his pitch with a far greater degree of focus, clarity, intelligence, eloquence, wisdom, and command of the issues than his frequently wavering and fumbling opponent was able to do.

I was really baffled that the common editorial thread in US mainstream media weaved a portrayal of a "tie." Looking for editorial takes abroad, I found that reactions to the debate were much closer to my own view: round one went to Kerry.

And that brings me to the reason for this posted invitation to share and post links to articles that review last night's debate, in this thread.

Here are selections from two articles with headlines that in my opinion perfectly capture the tragic editorial paralysis in US media:

US press: Debate was a tie

01/10/2004 13:17  (News24.com - South Africa)

Washington - Both President George W Bush and his Democratic rival John Kerry forcefully defended their positions on Iraq, and their first televised debate was enough of a tie to entice voters on to their next encounter, leading United States dailies agreed on Friday.

"If Americans who tuned into last night's presidential debate were waiting for one of the candidates to catch the other in a fatal error, or leave him stammering, the event was obviously a draw," wrote The New York Times.

...

USA Today leaves the verdict on the first presidential debate "up to every viewer," adding that both candidates for the November 2 election had left voters with much to ponder - "each impressively arguing his case."

...

The Los Angeles Times presented its readers with what it believes is the real conundrum: "Kerry won Thursday night's debate on foreign policy by a comfortable margin, but Americans may yet decide that President Bush is better able to clean up the mess he created in Iraq."

...

(...) the (Washington) Post added, "Bush's clarity in defining goals was not matched with candor about conditions on the ground in Iraq," and Kerry was effective in stressing how the nuclear threat from North Korea and Iran has increased under Bush's watch.

(source)
_______________________________________________

World seems to think Kerry won

Friday, October 1, 2004 Posted: 7:43 AM EDT (CNN - AP)

LONDON, England (AP) -- John Kerry scored points against George W. Bush on the Iraq war during their televised debate, but both men avoided the kind of gaffe that could be a turning point in the presidential election, foreign analysts and media said Friday.

...

Kerry "won more points," said Stephan Strothe, a commentator on Germany's N24 news channel.

...

London's Financial Times portrayed it as more of a draw, but one that didn't seem to immediately benefit Bush.

...

Germany's ZDF television introduced the debate on its morning news bulletin with the words "John Kerry won -- at least the first television debate."

...

Some Asian viewers also saw Kerry come out ahead in the debate.

(source)

Note how careful the CNN / AP article treads on assessing the foreign reactions: it mimics treatment by CNN (and its colleagues) of the debate itself.

To me, it's as if US mainstream media have a professional approach that is mired by the same characteristics of Bush that were effectively hammered by John Kerry last evening: a profound lack of focus, clarity, intelligence, eloquence, wisdom, and command of the issues.

That's why I started this thread, with the open invitation to post links to (editorial) articles that reflect that medium's opinion of the debate and its outcome: to document a state of professional paralysis with a http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer%3Fpagename%3Dthestar/Layout/Article_Type1%26call_pageid%3D971358637177%26c%3DArticle%26cid%3D1096625292007">snapshot of media reactions, and the difference between the editorial communis opinio in the US and abroad.