Asking Questions about ABC's Gotcha Debate

When the decisions of a network news division are Topic A on the campaign trail, drawing the fire not only of leading candidate Barack Obama but of more than 15,000 critical messages online, they should qualify as the major focus of the networks' nightly newscasts next night. Obama dubbed the questioning strategy selected by moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos the Gotcha Debate. Yet all three networks buried the lead, choosing not to make ABC News' strategy at its Philadelphia debate the Story of the Day. Instead, for a third straight day, Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the nation's capital qualified as Thursday's top story.

So the aftermath of ABC's Philadelphia debate was undercovered on the network newscasts. They punted when it came to assessing the validity of Obama's complaints. Sure, he went on his "45-minute" rant about ABC's lack of substance during the first battery of questions: "45 minutes before we heard about healthcare; 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq; 45 minutes before we heard about jobs..." but that soundbite carries little weight. It amounts to nothing more than special pleading since those 45 minutes made him look so bad.

"The consensus is that Barack Obama had a rough night," summarized ABC's David Wright. CBS' Dean Reynolds saw him on the "defensive...a series of questions that aides say left him dispirited." NBC anchor Brian Williams introduced Ron Allen's coverage by calling it "bruising." Allen saw Hillary Rodham Clinton do "everything she could to put Obama on his heels."

The fact is that Obama's description of ABC News' questioning strategy is accurate. It was indeed 45 minutes before public policy issues were raised. CBS' Reynolds summarized the range of non-issue topics from his "controversial preacher" to "the radical urban terrorists who used to be his neighbors" to his "past statements" to his choice to wear a "flag pin or lack thereof." In other words, those initial questions by Gibson and Stephanopoulos focused on guilt by association, loyalty tests and verbal gaffes.

The point is: so what?

Surely the networks should have interrogated Obama's complaints and those of the "thousands of angry viewers," as ABC's Wright called them, e-mailing abcnews.com, to see if this line of questioning was journalistically sound or not. Wright quoted from a couple of e-mails, one denouncing the questions as "shoddy journalism" another asking rhetorically: "Folks. If he cannot deal with the hostile questions from George and Charlie, how do you expect him to deal with McCain & Co in the fall?" On ABC's newscast, anchor Gibson declined to account for himself, merely noting that "the debate over the debate has been heated" as if his role ended as soon as the questions left his mouth.

As McCarthyite as questions concerning the words of one's associates and the absence of ostentatious displays of patriotism might be, there were nevertheless a couple of journalistic justifications for this line of questioning implied, but not explored in the debate coverage.

The first is the substantive argument. That 45 minutes of questioning would have been appropriate if ABC News sincerely believed that the failure to wear a flag in one's lapel can be a legitimate disqualification from office, or attending the Trinity United Church, or serving on a board with a onetime Weatherman, or describing downtrodden small town voters as bitter and clinging.

The second is the vetting argument implied in the "McCain & Co" e-mail ABC's Wright quoted. This justification belongs to the style of campaign reporting that Tyndall Report has dubbed Reality Gameshow Journalism. It sees the political reporter's job as subjecting candidates to a series of ordeals, to test how they react under pressure, as a way to measure their qualifications for the job--just as a winning contestant on Survivor has to weather the conspiracies of all others in order to emerge triumphant.

In this vetting model, it matters not whether Gibson or Stephanopoulos sincerely believe that the questions are appropriate tests of Obama's Presidential mettle; only whether they anticipate that they are going to be asked by someone or other eventually--by Rodham Clinton herself or by McCain or by other journalists or by ideological activists.

My suspicion is that Reality Gameshow Journalism informed ABC's choice of questions, not sincerely held civic beliefs.

The failure in the initial reporting on the debate lies not only in ABC's reluctance--and that of its rivals--to interrogate the underlying political judgment informing those questions. Actually it would have been highly unusual if campaign reporters had been that introspective. A less excusable oversight lies in their failure to get Rodham Clinton on the record on these issues.

We were left with guesswork: CBS' Jeff Greenfield seemed certain that she was in the vetting camp not that of substance: "She used all the critiques of Obama that the moderators used, to say: 'Well, you know, I would not say those things but we know how the Republicans behave so that is why it is relevant." NBC's Allen took a different view: "Clinton said everything was fair game," he reported. And her rival seemed to think so too: "Obama noted how much his opponent seemed to enjoy the evening," CBS' Reynolds observed.

So if reporters choose not to ask Gibson and Stephanopoulos, at least they can ask Rodham Clinton. Is it fair game to use a clumsy extemporaneous locution to criticize a rival or should he be entitled to retract and restate? Is using the words of associates against him fair game? Can the choice of church for worship be a disqualification or is that an unConstitutional religious test for office? Are loyalty tests on the absence or presence of flags fair game?

Were ABC News' questions legitimate? Or were they illegitimate yet inevitable? Her answer would be more interesting than those self-serving soundbites of Obama's "45 minutes" complaints.

Comments

[oneisone]

The truth is quite different -- ABC did a terrrific job in covering issues which has surface since the last debate, and that is really all there is to it. All of this incredible verbal gymnastics about their motivation is pure hot air, pure unadulterated attempts to cover up the facts regarding Obama's failure of judgment in the Church and pastor he acknowledges are important to him. ANY way you look at it it was going to be a sticky thing once the tapes of the looney preacher were aired, and it is totally ridiculuos to blame the ABC PEOPLE FOR DOING THEIR JOB. THEY are only the messenger.­....the truth is OBAMA COULD HAVE TURNED IT AROUND far better than he did in his so called speech on race which was totally boring if he had just turned to HILLARY and apologized for the racist comments of his preacher about her versus him in terms of relative advantage.­....he could have scored bigtime. HE DID NOT do this, and it is unclear why because the video would have receieved enormous airtime and put the entite episode behinds. His failure of careful preparation was the issue because as surely and night follows day and dehydration follows from lack of water this ISSUE was going to come up in the debate.
IN SUM, obama was uunprepare­d......and this is not ABC's fault. Once again, his judgmental wisdom is open to question..­...perhaps he is not the genius he pretends to be????

[CaseyBabes]

History always repeats itself, for example, now we have the good Senator Obama possibly assuming the Presidency. Thus we'll experience a revival of the Carter-like leadership, in effect, a whining wimp tossing blame all around when the heat gets turned up a little. Cripes....­....ABC panelists dare to present the good Senator Obama with some cutting questions and he falls apart. One question in particular, rather a point, aimed at Barry concerned tax raising's effect on economic progress. He muttered, he parried, ducked, then blurted some nonsense about "fairness.­"
The good Senator Obama is a charamistic presense on the political scene with mastery of the campaigning process. But that's all he's got; ain't nothing more, and if one was to listen intently at what he says it is obvious. Indeed, he has a decent background devoted to the inner city, but that hardly prepares anyone for the ominous world we live in. Senator Obama revealed his mettle by soon after the ABC debate attacking the questioners to "cover" his tap dancing in response to the tax raising issue presented to him. Guess we'll be hearing about malaise next, ala Whinny Carter.
To all my fellow Independents out there, focus on Obama's answers 'cause we're the ones who will elect the next President.

[luziannagirl]

Why aren't Obama's numbers aren't falling after his "gaffe" regarding the reason middle class rural whites vote Republican against their own self-interests?

Because though his comments were a bit off the mark, they resonated enough that these very voters nodded their heads. They need refining, but he's onto something important.

For these voters, however, it's actually more about values and less about their economic self-interests than the other half of America wants to believe. These R-voting conservatives have long been tired of the entertainment and advertising industry's use of sex to sell, and the glorification of money and material things over everything else. They they feel their families and communities and values are being attacked by the outside world, and they are being attacked! Big corporations, big government, big moneyed interests all want their pound of flesh, and don't seem to care what they have to do to get it.

However, this crowd incorrectly blames "liberals" , when the real culprits are corporate predators and in-cahoots elected officials of both parties.

If Obama is truly a champion of the people, he'll risk digging the hole even deeper and keep talking, because the people sure can't depend on mainstream "gotcha" media OR party politicos to ask real questions about real issues.

[Countess]

This was a hatchet job by two so called journalists one of whom has a direct conflict of interest. No wonder we have an idiot as president with this kind of tabloid journalism. It was more than dumb; it was an insult to the intelligence of voters.

[BigBen]

Asking Questions about ABC's Gotcha Debate; Hillary Slams Democratic Activists; Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies; My Recollection of Hillary Clinton at the 1995 Camp David Meeting; Beyond Herself, Who Does Hillary Clinton Really Want to See Win? Worst debate ever? Demographics Anyone?Clinton Mocks Obama For Complaining About Debate; Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich Endorses Obama. I could go on and on like Move On.org but I won't.
Above are a few of the even minded and unbiased headlines in the Post this morning. And they say the right wing extremists are bad. Here are the people who expect Hillary's friends to vote for their candidate in November if it is Obama. Need I say more? The only conclusion from their headlines on the debate which I could draw is that Obama must have done a lousy job. When you don't like the message slam the messenger.

[Softnsweet]

The reason why I am voting for Obama is because I am sick to death of old politics. Hillary is getting her rocks off. How died and made that witch boss? What told her that she had to bring up issues about Obama before the republicans do it? The republicans know what the hell to do. They taught her. Clinton's negative campaigning of Obama is what all democratics will start doing to each other from now on. The republicans will sit back and look and laugh. The damn republicans did not vet their opponents for the democrats. The witch is jealous and wanted to nail Obama.

I know Obama wants to take the high road but my mother told me you don't have to go off on a person to get your point across. Obama is a Lawyer. He should know what to say in a nice but firm way to Hillary and to date he is not using it. I am upset with him about that. The man better learn how to get a voice. Reading comments of how Obama supporters can put Hillary supporters down in a nice way cracks me up all the time. Obama better learn how to get down. If he does not know than he better ask Michelle.

[timinhi]

"Softnsweet":
"Obama better learn how to get down. If he does not know than he better ask Michelle[?]"
You scare me. "Clinton's negative campaigning of Obama?" Pure hypocritical crap. Obamites get their panties in a bind by what they call "gotcha" politics, when skeletons from Barack's closet are brought out into the light (like his associations with radicals and crazy preachers), but it's perfectly okay to bludgeon Hillary's comments about the landing in Tuzla to death as though what happened there on the tarmac mattered one way or the other anyway (compared to her actual good will mission there). It's perfectly okay to scour through every word Hillary said at some unimportant meeting in 1995 where the midterm election defeat was "analyzed," to try to illustrate that she's somehow more "elitist" than Barack is, even though HIS comments were made a couple WEEKS ago. And then every yahoo in the world who supports Obama is able to demonize Hillary using every conceivable personal insult, right here on HuffPo, and Obama and his campaign, as well as the blog "moderators" do absolutely nothing to reign in the viscious attacks. And then ObamaCo continues to spout on about how he's about "change" and "hope" and "a new kind of politics." Shame on all of you.

[BigBen]

When you can't stand the head get out of the kitchen. Hillary is a woman. She knows about the heat in the kitchen. Obama has to learn.You don't learn that at Harvard.

[ymaxoneil]

The debate was not a debate. It was just a tool used by Clinton croonies to show Obama in a negative light. Pathetic.
George should not have been a part of the commentator's panel as he had a conflict of interest being a former clinton employee. Charles is old school..ne­ed i say more?
That being said ABC = America's Booring Commentato­rs...shoul­d really consider firing or retiring these 2 guys. They were awful and had NO substance what so ever. I have been to better HS debates. Whats worse is they had PLENTY of stuff to nail the Obama & Clinton about and they let them both off the hook with gossip! Obama got it bad because (sorry to say this but it is true) most white men always feel the need to get the upper hand on a black man and whip them over the head with their 'supreme power.' I don't know why ...but it is unfortunately true. Let's put it this way...Wrig­ht & Ayers was driving a car, they got pulled over by officer George & Charles - wright got arrested for actually speaking his mind, Ayers got arrested for actions from 40 years ago and Barack got arrested because George and Charles found a Obama bumper sticker on the tail pipe and when they went to Barack's house he answer the door in his pajama's not wearing a flag pin and told the officers he was bitter about being woken at 3am!

[BigBen]

From reading the headlines attack on the ABC debate I concluded that Obama did poorly. Am I right.

[PuritanDescendant]

Will the handling of this debate cause candidates to refuse ABC-hosted debates in the future? That would seem to be a logical and beneficial consequence.

Tyndall hits the main thing that I see in the debate, which is that ABC justified the questions as important because "others will raise them". This of coure begs the question: will they be legitimate or relevant questions when others raise them?

If you listen to what ABC has said, their defense is not that voters care about these issues, it's that the issues have been discussed in the media. The conclusion is that this debate was really for the media and press, and not for the public. Gibson and George asked questions of interest to themselves and their colleagues. Nowhere do they even pretend that voters care about these issues.

[skimmer]

The question isn't whether these issues can be "a legitimate disqualification from office." It's whether they're important factors voters want to consider in making their evaluations of the candidates.

Obama's performance so far in the race can only be partly credited to his stance on the issues. I'd say his ultimate victory over so many other Democrats with more experience will have more to do with his charisma, character, and leadership skills. People like and trust him, and believe in him. So questions about who he chooses to have relationships with, whether he values silly patriotic symbols, and how he thinks of small-town conservatives are all relevant and important.

And I also think it's a good thing for the public to hear him address each of these issues. Some of them he handled very well; some not so well.

[Softnsweet]

No they are not revelant.. That is a bunch of bullcrap. Can you tell me when has McCain or Hillary's relationships with other has been brought up? His patriotism should not be in question, the man is a professor of constituitional law for christ sakes. That should tell you that he loves his country.

Hillary Clinton believes she should be vetting Obama for the republicans is a nonsense. Have the vetted their candidates for the democrats. She is jealous!

[skimmer]

"No they are not revelant."

To you. Not all voters are like you. And not all voters have made up their minds about Obama's character.

[justbuzz]

Oh yeah...why didn't they push her for an answer to her remark to Bill Richardson about Obama can't win? Maybe it was because he had other people present when she said it! The list of hard questions is long, and it would have torn her apart. The questions they asked Obama were about toughest they could come up with, and they were lame.

[justbuzz]

posercom, If this was a "fair" debate as you say, why didn't they question Hillary harder on her Bosnia lie? This wasn't something she repeated once, but a couple times. I was in Nam and true sniper fire is NOT something you forget. For that matter, the way she lead into her lie....whe­n it was too dangerous for the president to go they send in the first lady....wh­at...her wonderwoman underoos are going to protect her? or was she trying to infer that her, Chelsea, Sinbad, and Sheryl Crow were more expendable? Why didn't they push her to admit " I lied about it ". Why didn't they push her about her husband's pardon and commutation of weathermen that actually were convicted of crimes against the USA? Why didn't they ask her why she'd keep Penn on her payroll when he was for the COlumbia Trade agreement? Why didn't they ask her about her husbands involvement in it too?
Those are much harder questions to answer than the ones asked of Obama, and they are much more important.

[posercom]

For 15 months I've watched as MSNBC and CNN promoted the weekest most unelectable candidate that the dems had to offer. The Misogyny Broadcast system: MSNBC and the I've got a crush on Obama network-CNN have done a great diservice to voters in their unconditional devotion to a candidate who has little to offer besides catch phrases and a blank screen for voters to project there dreams upon. If Charlie and George really wanted to be tough on the anointed one they would have asked him about his defeat of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Obama is the opiate of the masses. His supporters protest to much when he is revealed as the Marxist he really is. George Soro's tool wil lnever make it into the White House. If you really want to see deplorable journalism take a look at YOUTUBE's video Hillary Clinton Mad as Hell Bitch-a compilation of all the toxic sexist commentary that has been poluting the airwaves for 15 months. Obama failed even more miserably in the second part of the debate than in the first half. When did my party, the dems become the party that suppress votes and makes excuses for racism. Bravi Charlie and George. This was in fact the only fair debate between Clinton and Obama.

[Beatcomber]

Posts this dumb must be responded to. Read the transcripts of the "debate" pal. The first 7 questions were lame ass gotcha questions. Hillary got Bosnia and Obama got the flag pin and the other silly stuff.

My question to Hillary would be. Did Bill Clinton make 100 million dollars after he was president because he was tough on corporations while he was in office or is this "speech money" payment for services rendered?

Answer that one.

[efranklin]

You forget how many pity votes Chris Matthews gets for Hillary. Then again, that's about where Hillary's support ends: pissed off women, who'll instantly dump all their principles wholesale to vote for McCain out of spite. Spite for Obama, who dared question the doctrine of Clintonian presidential birthright.

[Thorn]

"McCarthyite"? Wow. Try to catch your breath.