Damn the Moderators... Full Speed Ahead

While Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are being burned in effigy for their performance in the Philadelphia TV debate last week -- for the crime of putting Obama on the defensive with relentless questioning about recent gaffes, incendiary remarks by his pastor, and association with a Weatherperson -- the subsequent hue and cry in the media raises questions about the debating process that will remain long after the primary votes are counted tomorrow night.

I do not think the ABC News moderator team was deliberately holding Obama's feet to the fire for partisan purposes, as it was suggested the past week by Obamaniks.

Neither do I think they were trying, as Joe Scarborough put it the night and morning after the debate on MSNBC, to achieve the laudatory goal of showing us the inner man as guide to what the candidate might do in the Oval Office. It was the kind of questioning, and I'm paraphrasing Joe here, that might have been useful if the media pre-election asked Bush about his business failures, his alcoholism, and why his Texas Rangers lost so many games in his reign as a managing partner. The Morning Joe's theory is that would have saved us a lot of trouble the last eight years.

No, none of these things.

You have to understand something about these debates, of which Philadelphia was the 21st episode of a reality TV series, which I call "Weapons of Mass Distraction." The offensive episode was not about Obama or Hillary.

The subtext of the debate, ignored by all the pundits and partisans alike, is that it's all about Charlie Gibson and his sidekick Stephy trying to show they can be as tough as Tim Russert and Brian Williams, their arch rivals on NBC News, current leaders in the Torquemada League. It's all about who can tighten the thumbscrews tighter, who can whack the candidates' feet with canes with more gusto. Who can look less like the usual sheep dressed in moderators' clothes in TV presidential debates?

The sheep have been gamboling since CNN -- the so-called "most trusted name in news" (they never say on what planet) began the campaign as entertainment season in June 2007 with the two debates at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.

Starring Wolf Blitzer as moderator, with what sometimes seemed like a cast of thousands, the Wolfman dominated the debates. He directed questions at the ten Democrats and eight Republicans, like a trainer throwing fish to the performing seals on stage.

Wolf Bluster, as we called him, appeared more knowledgeable on the issues, knowing all the rhetorical answers as well as the questions. He made debates seem all about him, like extended versions of his Situation Room.

The charming, well-traveled, hipper Anderson Cooper in his Gap-style clothing joined the CNN debating the night of the major breakthrough; "You Tube" questions were asked by viewers like you and me.

CNN's Campbell Brown also demonstrated the art of toe kissing by a moderator later on in the season.

What changed everything for me in these snooze fests was seeing Tim Russert in action during the MSNBC round of debates. Brian Williams, who is something of the wet noodle on the team, would deliver the usual hollow, well-enunciated network anchorman fluffy statement wrapped around a question, made famous by his predecessor Tom Brokaw. And then Russert would come in for the kill.

Eyes-bulging, loaded with political smarts, seemingly fearless, Russert is a fire breathing newshound compared to the others on the beat. I sure wouldn't want this dog chewing at my pants leg by not answering his question.

Russert was a tough act for Gibson & Stephy to follow in their debut in prime time. The ABC pair came roaring out of their cage, and didn't let up for the first forty-five minutes. It had greater impact because they were on a commercial entertainment network in prime time hours with a bigger audience than ever saw Russert on MSNBC debates on cable.

And we are just not used to seeing our TV newsmen as real journalists. Sam Donaldson and the old original Dan Rather are history. Too often our TV newsmen look like they are actors who know how to play the role of newsmen.

One can argue that moderators can be suspicious characters because of checkered pasts. Russert, for example, was a flack for Moynihan and Cuomo before discovering a second home on Sunday TV. Stephanopoulos was a top Clinton employee. The potential conflict of interest is always there. Should they be careful about burning bridges and need to return to their roots in public service? In TV, you are only as good as your latest Nielsen ratings.

The larger question not addressed in all the tumultuous uproar is why we need moderators in a debate? Why do we need panels of questioners and other paraphernalia of glorified press conferences and video gimmicks? Why are we making stars of those running the debates? You'd think somebody like Wolf Bluster, for example, was running for office earlier in the season.
The way we have accepted the bastardized version of a real debate since the League of Women Voters invented these so-called "debates" in 1972 is scary.

I suggest that those protesting Charlie and Stephy's partisanship aim their ire at the firmly held conviction that debates need moderators/questioners/videos from the folks at home instead of letting the debaters go at each other unaided, a system of discourse which worked fairly well for centuries before the League of Women Voters invented this impediment to public discourse called "debates."

Comments

[ZapDuff]

Last Part

Note to MSNBC webmaster: Look at the Morning Joe home page. Goof balls... looks like the HRC campaign site: 8 - EIGHT! - pictures of her and 10 - TEN! headlines with her name displayed. NOT a single picture of Obama and only one head featuring his name. Pathetic excuse for a media outlet to allow this kind of blatant bias. It will not boost your hits, if that is what you are trying to achieve. You DO give more reason to migrate to the Huffington Post.

Clueless MSNBC: Your sense of news values is sorelely displaced. You demonstrate you have no idea who is leading in the Presidential contest! Guess accurate, factual, unbiased, and balanced coverage is not a priority on your network. America expects that from Fox, but not from the channels that gave us Swayze, Huntley-Brinkley, Chancellor, and Brokaw! That clicking sound you hear is falling viewership, dropping ratings, and financial disaster.

[ignrnthllblly]

In the beginning was journalism. Journalists who did their own research and their own writing. Journalists who almost never had faces and never became celebrities and liked it that way.

Then there was television journalism, which was essentially the conversion of actual journalists into trusted personalities who practiced their craft in immediate fashion. Infancy past. Then the substitution of "faces" for the readers of news--faces which read the reporting and writing of others. Then the faces became celebrities in their own right. And the people who wished to become them did so not because they wanted to be journalists too, but because they wanted to be seen--perhaps to become celebrities as well.

Next, we relieved them of the burden of the Fairness Doctrine--which, aside from its political implications, got in the way of being perceived (and adored) as dynamic celebrities. Then the television news producers called forth the print journalists and exposed them to the narcotic of being watched, making them minor celebrities.

And all the while, college journalism departments pretended that those who above all wanted to be seen were the same people as those who wished to be appreciated for their writing. They still do.

Journalism, like newspapers (particularly family-owned newspapers), like literacy and the power of the written word--all culminated with the rise of what we charitably call "television journalism".

[swift_goat_pet_for_truth]

I give up on MSM. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

These bozos need some real moderators to show them how it should be done.

I hope someone will pick up Stewart and Colbert.
"Comedy Central presents the 2008 Presidential Debates"

[Cathexis]

Don't give me "it was about character," because it wasn't. It was about trotting out GOP smear attempts, for the most part. Conversely (although we're in no danger of this, it seems) I don't want moderators to snipe at McCain's mistress, how he dumped his ill wife, or how he was forced into being used as a propaganda tool during the Vietnam war. or if he wears a lapel pin.

Those. Things. Don't. Matter. They are petty distractions.

Focus on the issues. Focus on when candidates say one thing at one time and reverse themselves in front of a different audience. THOSE speak to character and consistency. Focus on what the substantive differences are between candidates and what we could expect to be different if one or the other were elected.

All the rest is just a sad "Reality Show" wannabe with manufactured controversy.

And do we need debates? Yes. Otherwise, all we have are partisan commercials with lies and distortion, and "journalism" which is put out by people who (all too often) are just stenographers for the candidates campaign, if not actual partisan shills.

[Cathexis]

We're not used to seeing "real journalists?"

Perhaps I failed to follow the thrust of your post, Mr Kitman. I am not an Obama-maniac ... to be honest, I fon't give a damn who wins the nomin ation as long as it is a Dem. But I found the last debate reprehensible. It was all about trying to find a scandal that might stick and poking a finger into any and all allegations and insinuations ... whether founded or not. I'm tired of the sheer asininity (is that a word?) of it all.

Previous debates have sucked, as well. BTW, Russert's performance sucked. If he was to be an "attack dog" on issues or substantive areas, I'd agree. But petty gotcha's on trivialities (and/or more GOP smear attempt points) hardly qualify as journalism ... no matter how tenacious one might be.

Do we need debate moderators? Yes, as a matter of fact , I believe we do. But they need to be impartial professionals who add to the level of discourse by providing meaningful structure ... not stooping to the level of a political Entertainment Tonight! And that means focusing on substance ... not lapel pins or whiskey shots or alleged lesbianism or Weatherman accusations.