For those too young to remember, Bob Somerby sums it up:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh042507.shtml(snip)
Amazingly, Simon wrote in praise of the dumbest, least appropriate question ever asked in a general election debate—the lurid query Bernie Shaw threw at Dukakis to open the final 1988 forum. ("Governor, if Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer?”) It’s amazing to see that pundits like Simon still think this was the greatest moment in the history of American journalism. And it’s amazing to see that Shaw still thinks this question proves he was The Man.
In his first post, Waldman does an excellent job of critiquing the nonsense involved here. (Though no one could really do full justice to the absurdity of Simon’s analysis.) In his second post, he takes us back to the 1972 White House race—and helps us see how major pundits pick and choose winners for us dumb-ass voters. Yep! This has gone on for a very long time in this, our dumbest cohort.
If you’re interested in the way our elections get scripted, we strongly recommend both Waldman posts. But we thought it was worth noting one further point: Right after that second Bush-Dukakis debate, Bernie Shaw got some very bad reviews for asking his dumb, ugly question. Checking on Nexis, we found few next-day reports praising Shaw. We found several reports which savaged him for asking his dumb, ugly question.
Here’s how Steve Daley began an analysis piece in the next day’s Chicago Tribune:
DALEY (10/14/88): In a matter of figurative television moments, CNN anchor Bernard Shaw raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis, then killed off George Bush before Inauguration Day.
Counting the Bentsen-Quayle confrontation, maybe three of these increasingly lunatic televised debates are enough.
Shaw, moderator for the second presidential debate Thursday evening, provided the lowest moment in three long nights of these tightly wound parallel press conferences.
And this time, the panel of journalists really did botch the process.
Newsweek reporter Margaret Warner dithered over an ill-conceived question on Michael Dukakis' "likability.” ABC's Ann Compton was able to elicit the startling fact that Dr. Jonas Salk is one of Dukakis' heroes. Based on his performance, viewers were blessed that Shaw got only one question.
It was a grim evening for anyone wearing press credentials, as well as for anyone shopping for a president.
Ouch! But others had the same reaction to Shaw’s brilliant question. In the Boston Globe, Tom Oliphant said that Dukakis had done quite poorly overall. (In the polls, The Duke had won the first debate.) But he savaged Shaw “for asking a question of appalling poor taste.” In the Post, Tom Shales whacked him too:
SHALES (10/14/88): Moderator Shaw certainly got the evening off to a morbid start. He began a question about the death penalty by saying to Dukakis, "If Kitty Dukakis were raped and murdered ... " Then he turned to Bush and asked, "If you are elected, and die before inauguration day ... ." Bush exclaimed, "Bernie!"
Before the closing statements, Shaw declared, "We have come to the end of our questions. That's a pity." Not really. Most of the questions were reprises from the first debate. In fact, last night's questions were probably the most lackluster of the three encounters.
On October 15, Oliphant reported an interesting fact: Citing panel member Ann Compton, he reported that “the three panelists had tried to persuade Shaw not to ask the question, arguing that it might set an ugly tone for the 90-minute session.” In that same day’s Chicago Tribune, Timothy McNulty quoted Kitty Dukakis, who said, "It was an outrageous question, it really was." More McNulty: “Mrs. Dukakis, a strong-minded campaigner and her husband's closest adviser, said she was embarrassed and did not want to make eye contact with her husband as he answered.”
We’ve always thought that was the lowest and dumbest moment in the history of presidential debates. To this day, of course, journos love to mock Dukakis—because he didn’t know how to respond to a type of question almost no one would ask. (On October 14, several reporters said that Dukakis seemed “startled” or “taken aback” by the question.) But we didn’t know that our pundit corps still thinks that was a brilliant query. Even here, we didn’t know that their judgment remains that poor.