Wednesday, October 08, 2008
|
|
Message to GOP: It's the Moderator, Stupid ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
10:29 AM
|
|
It occurs to me that every election cycle, nearly every single presidential debate (even the GOP primary debates) are moderated by "old media" liberals. This, of course, is problematic, inasmuch as a moderators true beliefs are bound to influence the debate. Even if a moderator honestly tries very hard to hide their ideology, it is likely to impact their body language, inflection, and generally, the way they frame the debate.
Subtle biases are especially harmful because they are hardest to detect. The worst cases often occur before the debate event begins. For example, an instance of bias might include deciding which questions get asked -- or even worse -- which questions don't deserve to be asked ...
In my estimation, it is ridiculous that Republican candidates continue to consent to this. Twenty years ago, we may not have had an option, but times have changed. We now have a plethora of qualified conservatives -- some of whom are in the New Media (as opposed to the dying old media that Brokaw knows all too well) -- who are just as worthy and experienced, I would dare say, as Gwen Ifill. The New Media is growing in popularity, but for some reason, we still look to the old media for "credibility"???
For every Gwen Ifill and Tom Brokaw, there ought to be a Bill Bennett or a George Will. At the very least, we should insist on Fox hosting at least one of the General Election debates.
As long as Republican candidates consent to this treatment, they will get what they deserve...
|
|
|
Does Matt or anyone else have any concrete examples of the moderators' unfairness? Haven't read any yet, either in the article or in the column, which I think is pretty telling. Look, the fact is McCain is losing the debates, and it is pretty much because of the candidate he is, not some of some phantom unfairness imposed by the moderatorors or the formats. |
|
Conservatives are always talking about how tough they are - lipstick on a bulldog, maverick, and all that. And then when things don't turn out so well they whine about the media. If you're tough, prove it. If your guy loses, figure out what he did wrong.
Pointing fingers only makes you smaller. |
|
|
|
Neither candidate had a problem with the moderator being a liberal so it wasn't that. McCain conceded much of the format to conform to Obama's wishes so long as the moderator was older than McCain. I mean Brokaw looks REALLY OLD! And after being in the business for 127 years, he STILL couldn't sign off without his script? And the moderator for the next "debate" is older still: Bob Scheiffer!
That's my story and I'm sticking with it. |
|
|
I think McCain has to do more blinking during these debates. I think he was sending us messages in Morse Code. |
|
|
No change of venue, format, or moderator will make John McCain a better candidate. He's a traditional Democrat running as the GOP nominee. It just doesn't work. |
|
it makes no diff anyway, ...both candidates are socialist liberals.
The debates are a phony scam anyway, with scripted questions etc.
Nary a tough question about illegal immigration, judges or abortion. |
|
|
I followed all requirements and did not use profanity etc. |
|
|
Wasn't my comment accepted? |
|
Nowhere did I say it was Brokaws fault for the debate, I saw a remark that they just couldn't understand the debate questions.
Mccain is a responsible man that accepts responsibility for his actions or lack of actions.
Sorry, you are mistaken, I am not one to blame anyone for anything.
Me thinks that is the job of the Lib Dems.
And if you think Brokaw isn't in the tank for obama you are either stupid or blind or just a dumb Lib!
I think all three fit you! |
|
|
alternatively. For example candidate A asks candidate B a question and then vice versa. That would guarantee that each candidate could ask his/her opponent what he/she considered to be important for the general public to hear and know. Frankly I think presidential debates are useless. I am not interested in gotcha moments or presidential promises. I vote based on what the candidate has done in the past and not what he/she promises to do if elected. The problem in this election is the fact that Obama hasn't done anything in the past of substance. That is why I call him Cotton Candy Obama; all fluff and no non-Marxist substance. BTW, I don't believe in truly nonbiased moderators. Almost 40 years ago I suggested that our 3 lawyer arbitration panels have at least one attorney from the plaintiffs' bar and one from the defendants bar since I noticed in the discussions that I tended to remember what was favorable to the defendant and the trial lawyers tended to remember what was favorable to the plaintiffs. I was accused at a meeting of the full bar that I was questioning the integrity of my fellow lawyers. I suggested that we weren't being dishonest, what we were doing was subconsciously favoring our side of the bar. I am happy to say that many years later, my suggestion was adopted and we now have both sides of the bar represented on our arbitration panels. |
|
|
blame everyone else for your failings. Classic. |
|
|
Same man who said Ayers is now a nice guy? He put on the debate? Now who do you think Brokaw was for last night? |
|
Boy, get thee to a doctor. Brokaw has been defending McCain over and over whenever he gets the chance. He defered to him quite a bit in the debate last night -- and tried to CUT OBAMA OFF. How is he in the tank for Obama? He's not.
Brokaw sucked. Yes, get new blood. But suggesting that the blood be right wing just shows why your party is going down. The real nation of whiners are right here on Townhall.
Waahhhhh. |
|
This week the conservatives are blaming Brokaw for McCain's sub-par performance, next week they will probably blame the weather. This was McCain's best last chance to turn the tide on the election, and he blew it. Rather than leveling with the American people, McCain threw a temper tantrum. He scowled, he sneered, he directed pejorative attacks at Obama, and the American people yawned.
Republicans often try to blame their diminishing prospects of gaining any ground in November on the "liberal media". You know what, the media probably does have a liberal bias. This is not because there is some conspiracy against republicans and conservative values(as Palin would have us believe), rather it is because the media is just playing to the crowd. More and more Americans are growing tired of republican stigmas. We have had eight years of it and now it is time for something different. If more Americans empathized with Republican ideology, ratings pressure would elicit a rightward shift in media coverage. This obviously is not the case.
Republicans shouldn't blame the media because that is simply shooting the messenger. The real enemy of the Republicans is the will of the American people. See you in eight years!! |
|
This election is beginning to look like an episode of 24, the TV drama. You have a dashing and talented young senator who built his career with the help of domestic and foreign terrorists, America-hating religious leaders, convicted criminals, radical organizations and questionable relationships battling it out for the highest office in the land with a former American military hero and well known maverick in the senate.
The media is playing a major role in promoting the young politician by wooing the unsuspecting public into trusting the young senator while bashing his opponent at every opportunity.
The only thing missing is the engaging plot. How about this: The dashing young politician has been preparing for this mission for two decades under the direction of middle-eastern terrorists with a plot to overthrow the Great Satan of the west.
Successful infiltration into the highest levels of our government makes them privy to our nations top secret information and our greatest vulnerabilities among other things.
Sounds scary, doesn’t it!
|
|
|
WHO LET THE CROWS OUT,THE SAME OLD,OLD RADICAL LEFT WIGS,THEIR GLOW WORMS FOR OBAMA!ALL THE MEDIA NUTS ARE FOR OBAMA.THIS IS SICK AND SAD THE MEDIA WAGS THE DOG THE WANT,THIS DOG WONT HUNT!!!NO HUNTING!!SOME OF OBAMS MONEY COMES FOROM PETA! |
|
|
Republicans have become so self-defeating it's pathetic. The Left Wing Media might as well be paid campaign staff. |
|
|
LOL, got to agree with you there. Bill and Keith would both have to be tied down to keep them from each others throats! I'd pay to see that one. |
|
|
the fire just as much as Obama's. That is what I want to see, not this boring pablum but a real debate. If the candidates are not going to do it, at least have a fair moderator slap them both silly. |
|
Tom Brokaw was HORRIBLE as a moderator. He seemed more concerned about "the rules" than letting the candidates SPEAK.
If the candidates want to go after each other - fine!
But this "excuse me.. stop... red light... the previously agreed format... " turns this whole thing into mini-stump speaches with no DEBATE. |
|
Two names:
Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman |
|
|
Matt: I wholeheartedly agree. I said to my husband yet again last night I could not understand why the GOP, specifically McCain's campaign staff, continues to agree to liberals moderating all of the debates. Even if we accept that these moderators are trying to be unbiased, as Matt Lewis pointed out, there is still the matter of questions chosen to be asked and those left unasked; the matter of whether equal time is allowed for both candidates to answer questions; & who is allowed to have the last word (seems, generally, to be Obama/Biden). Their biases, if not overtly displayed, are certainly subject to subconscious expression and non-verbal communication. Next week, once again, we will be treated to the moderating of Bob Schieffer, another MSM host who is generally aligned with liberals. During the primary season, the Democrat candidates pinky swore among themselves to refuse to debate on FOX. Yet, the GOP continues to acquiesce to the idea of liberal network hosts. Why don't we have a co-host who is at least moderate in his or her views? |
|
It would be nice to have a moderator that isn't in the tank for Obama. Since Tom Brokaw really controlled who asked the questions and he knew what their question was going to be, the debate can't really be considered a "Townhall Debate"...
And who cares who George H.W. Bush sat on a board with, he ran for President 20 years ago, Obama is running right now and it is important to know who he has associated with. Obama has some very questionable associates, and I think it's only fair that we get honest answers. |
|
|
...it's the stupid moderator? |
|
|
The GOP should demand that one of the debate moderators be conservative. I would also add Fred Barnes to that list. |
|
Not Hannity or some other grenade thrower. The two gentlemen Matt Lewis mentioned are well known and respected. Why should not one of them host at least one debate?
MattACK: try to keep to the thread topic. It at least gives you the illusion of intellect and reason. |
|
Not sure what you're crying about (again). If you take off your Stupid Party glasses you'd see that every moderator so far has been surprisingly fair.
Of course, if Repubs started demanding things that are right, they would no longer be Repubs, would they? |
|
|
You would had Sean Hannity ask Obama about Bill Ayers. Most level headed Americans could give a $#@!% who their next President lives next door to, has lunch in the same room with, or even sat on a board with. H.W. Bush sat on a board with Osama bin Laden's dad at the Carlyle group. You wanna trot that our for discussion? |
|
|
|