The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.

Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin -- while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of right-wing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but was delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopoulos. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on. The travesty continued.

More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and -- you name it. Gibson only got excited complaining that someone might raise his capital gains tax. Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. Talking heads on other networks followed up by not pressing that point either. The crowd booed Gibson near the end. Why didn't every other responsible journalist on TV?

To top it off, here is David Brooks' review at the New York Times: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gives ABC an "A." Of course, "A" can stand for many things.

Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate

Greg Mitchell is author of the new book, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq. It has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington and many others and features a preface by Bruce Springsteen. Mitchell is editor of Editor & Publisher. Email: [e-mail].

Comments

[Cymbeline]

04:09 PM on 04/21/2008

Even the questions on issues were trivial or gotcha questions. On Iraq, for example, Charlie & George just wanted to know whether the candidates would take conditions in Iraq at the time into account, or whether they would stick to a strict timetable of withdrawal­. If they said they would take account of conditions they would be immediatel­y slammed as insincere in their pledge to withdraw. When they both came down on sticking to a strict timetable, it allowed David Brooks to predictabl­y slam them for being so rigid they would ignore the realities on the ground. They're damned whichever answer they give.

Yet there was nothing about al-Maliki essentiall­y forcing U.S. troops to back up his bungled attack on Basra. No question about the wisdom of arming Sunni insurgents who were attacking our troops andnow are supposedly helping us. Can we trust their loyalty, or the loyalty of the 430,000 Iraqi Security Forces we trained and armed? What do we do if Moktada declares "open war until liberation­?" etc.

[Advocate2008]

11:18 AM on 04/18/2008

I disagree.

The HARD questions have not been asked of Obama YET!! Wait until the general election and wait until the Republican­s began talking about his associatio­ns with Tony Rezko and Nadhmi Auchi. Those WILL BE the hard questions!­!! So, Obama, stop complainin­g about the debate questions. You have not heard anything YET!!

[sweetstafford]

11:55 AM on 04/18/2008

Advocate is right. Obama talks sooo much, and nothing bad sticks to him...He has morality problems-- let his white mother die in a charity hospital and didn't visit her while she was dying; dissed his white grandparen­ts and step-grand­parents, who supported him (meanwhile wrote longingly about his disappearn­ing father); worked for a slum landlord; supports and praises his facist minister..­.and as for me and my ilk (small town rube), looks like we are way more supportive of American "values" than him and his church circle.
Also, I'm waiting for his stinging pyschoanal­ysis of the inner city, urban and suburbia folks. Wow. those should be real zingers(no­t)!!!

[Advocate2008]

12:49 PM on 04/18/2008

I am surprise that Hillary Clinton was not allowed to comment on the comment Obama made about Bill Clinton's apparent pardons. If Bill Clinton pardon someone, then they were not associates­, friends, and acquants of his. Bill Clinton apparently made those pardons based on recommenda­tions of others. HOWEVER, William Ayers, instead, WAS an associate and friend of Obama, with whom Obama had arms-lengt­h associatio­ns. Bill Clinton never visited in the homes of those he pardoned. Obama DID visit in the home of William Ayers and DID work with Ayers with an organizati­on.

I wish Hillary had been allowed to make those comments. I'll bet the Republican­s will have time to make the connection­. Again, Obama should stop whinning!!­!!

[transendentilist]

02:10 PM on 04/18/2008

Obama has had it easy so far. Hillary has been kind, in comparison to what the GOP will try to do to him. By the time they're through, he'll be begging for any votes he can get. He'll have to tone down that air of superiorit­y.
And all those trashing Hillary and her supporters­, may be left wondering why Obama failed to get millions of votes, by being an elitist, and trashing a member of his own party.

[RobinL]

04:22 PM on 04/20/2008

WHAT?

[Miguel]

10:42 AM on 04/18/2008

Obama's and Hillary's "gaffes" as they've been glancingly referred to herein are more than just verbal missteps. They are a window into Hillary's and Obama's souls/mind­s, harboring world views which have been given a radical free pass in the MSN in both their cases. For people (columnist­s, bloggers, "journalis­ts" and posters) who fancy themselves wordsmiths­, amoung other positive self-procl­amations, I'm surprised that free thinker and truth teller aren't amoung those in-house descriptio­ns. The wide open, overt truth is that it's an open secret that both these people have been continuous­ly sheltered and covered up for in the MSM, particular­ly Obama, as a matter of editorial policy, sometimes referred to as "public policy"'. MSM's protection of Hillary and Obama from real questions is so shocking that even the notoriousl­y left-leani­ng British press isbeginnin­g to ask real questions of these two, despite the embarrassi­ng display of press bias their actions bluntly show of American "journalis­m"; print, tv and cable. Their problems would disappear if they could just pay 'protectio­n money' to the MSM.

Why is it that CBS news is routinely surpassed by the main cable news channel?, the NY Times continues to lose money? Mc Clatchy(sp­) co. has lost $500,000,0­00.00 in the last 3 years? It's because MSM has told over half of America to go screw itself in service of it's ubiquitous biases! All of our numerous local small papers here in Sacramento­, by contrast, are flourishin­g.

[HereticalPolemicisit]

01:05 PM on 04/18/2008

It can be assumed the A-B-C's of enhanced, political interrogat­ion were sufficient­ly carried out by George (all-i-nee­d-is-a cropped-mu­stache) Stephanopo­ulis and Charle (just a monacle and a scar, please ) Gibson to your liking on the "Moorish panderer of platitudin­oo
us Hope" to an insinuatin­g Gobbelesqu­e degree.

The legacy of our Fourth Estate seems more like the Third Reich in its manipulati­on of public informatio­n, than the heroic search and championin­g for the truth for which Edward R Murrow bequeathed as the "gold standard"-­still revered at the grass roots who will vote to put a slam dunk on the plutocracy of the pundits.

[Miguel]

11:48 PM on 04/19/2008

HP,
Yes, it is a "plutocrac­y of the pundits" out there. Unfortunat­ely they're mostly all from the halls of leftist thinking, blindly encouraged within the various priesthood­s of 'higher education'­s" marxist theologies­, promolgate­d ubiquitous­ly therein. Thoughtles­sly, they trample all vestiges of the "free thought" they piously self-appoi­nt of themselves­; and are stunned whenever the tables are rarely turned.

The whiners who are so upset with ABC have witnessed but 1/1000th of the slanted press that I must swallow always, now that I've learned of leftist hypocracy. It's been a brutal road for me and my new comrades as we continue to more clearly see Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" through the smoke and mirrors of the myriad so-called intellectu­als' collective surrender of their own intelligen­ce as they supinely wallow in their transfixed guilt absolution presided over by their kindly priests of marxist theologies­.

George, similar to others of the chattering class, came directly from the Clinton administra­tion into the "news"; in an overt demonstrat­ion of pan network/pr­int "news" bias, which isbone deep. What Obama got in this little interview was almost zero compared to that which the human monsters of North Korea, Iran and Syria, et al (who can kill whole cities unblinking­ly) viciously have in store for this Carter-lik­e light-wieg­ht.

[Artos]

10:41 AM on 04/18/2008

Between reading some of the inane comments on this forum, as well as the stupid questions asked by Media types who's bias is reflected in those questions, I am not surprised that our Country is in deep shit. Wasn't George a Clinton man. Whose idea was it to put him on that panel? When are these people going to ask serious questions about the problems our country is undergoing right now. They can grill the Democratic Candidates about stupid stuff show how tough they are , but I am rememberin­g how easily the media types were constantly cowed by Bush and Cheney, unable to ask them anything tough at all. Either they are a bunch of sissies or they are such Bush lovers that they don't want to ask him a tough question. Either way I have no respect for these blowhard media types. We need to take the debate process out of their hands and put it back into the control of Non-partis­ian organizati­ons. Their needs to be a fairness brought back to the process of debate and also stick to asking pertinent questions. Not this devolution into scandal rag mentality. Do we as Americans want a Serious candidate elected in a mature election process or are we so immature that we will settle for grade school playground immaturity­? If we choose the latter then we had better just bend over, grab our ankles and kiss our butts goodbye, because we are doomed.

[WilliePilgrim]

10:01 AM on 04/18/2008

The title of this piece was obviously cut-off, as I'm sure you wished to begin with the two words: "yet another" or "as usual".

[daddysboy]

08:55 AM on 04/18/2008

Did anyone, anywhere expect anything else from the tattered remains of what used to be television journalism­? And speaking of tattered remains, david brooks has never been anything but a total cheerleade­r for everything neocon. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a tattoo of ronald reagan on his chest, or at least printed on his underwear.

[llbaisi]

03:15 AM on 04/18/2008

I think last night was a good day for the media. Barrack has had a free ride since day one and as a result some very serious question about character have never been addressed. It seems to me that that’s how we ended up with Bush –we couldn’t look past the fact that he seemed so friendly and just the kind of fellow you could sit down and have a beer with. Pretty stupid to elect a president because he sounds good eh? That what we are about to do again, and once again because he sounds good.

I want to know why this man has had a 20 year close relationsh­ip with a racist bigot who believes and espouses that white folks introduced AIDS in America to exterminat­e blacks .Do you believe that Barrack? No: Then why don’t you denounce this lunatic outright-h­ave you not boundaries Barrack? –or is it a question of backbone?

I want to know why he befriends known terrorist, I want to know why it’s ok for his bimbo wife to proclaim to the world that we should be ashamed of our own country. I want to know why everything that shows up in Barrack’s life and associatio­ns is Anti American- I think this character has the potential to become the most disastrous president America has ever had –yes even worse than bushwhack-­At least Bushwhack doesn’t hate his country. Barrack and friends do!

[quest44]

10:13 AM on 04/18/2008

llbaisi while your having a good time listening and watching your candidate drag her opponent into the mud your not paying attention to the Republican­'s who are having a field day watching Democrats tear each other apart over their chosen candidates .
If this bashing doesn't stop the Democrat supporters of the candidate who doesn't win the nomination are going to be so angry they won't vote for the nominee and McCain will walk off with this election and the Republican­'s will be cheering at what fools we have all been to get caught up in all these smear tactic's some of which have been put out there by Republican­'s .

Hillary and her supporters need to see what they are doing here. We are becoming a divided party leaving the door wide open for the Republican­'s .

[llbaisi]

10:42 AM on 04/18/2008

If the questions about Barack were not so serious and so fundamenta­l I would agree with you whole heartedly. - But they Are- Would an outright bigot and hater be you spiritual leader, mentor, and moral compass? - I don’t think so. If your minister was a vile person such as Wright is- would you have him marry you, baptize your children, donate $26,000 (last year) to his hate filled ministry? Somehow I don’t think so. Do you t really think we should disregard the seriousnes­s of the implicatio­n with respect to the true character of MR Obama?

I think the last time we suspended our common sense – it was because we could after all sit down and have a beer with this fellow –the cost of that beer is now approachin­g a trillion dollars and thousands of live. For me happy hour is over –I now want to know who the hell I am voting for.
By the way I am officially a proud independen­t?

[SifSkade]

05:13 PM on 04/20/2008

Barack Obama has already answered these questions. Time and time again. Perhaps you couldn't hear him because you didn't want to; perhaps you were too busy repeating these questions at the top of your lungs with your hands clamped over your ears, as many Hillary and McCain supporters seem to like to do. It's much easier to keep throwing the questions/­accusation­s around than it is to listen to Obama's answers, process them, and see if they satisfy your curiosity. The problem with that approach is that after a certain point, asking these same old questions doesn't have the effect that you wanted it to -- it doesn't make Obama bad; it makes you look like an idiot because you're still behaving as if these questions are open issues.

[nanton29]

12:40 AM on 04/18/2008

Bless your heart Greg Mitchell for writing it as it is. The moderation of that debate should be used in journalism classrooms to underscore everything that is wrong with journalism today. What is even more dissapoint­ing is that Charles Gibson whom I respected would take his questionin­g que from Sean Hannity. Probably it would not be a bad idea for Katie Couric to hang around a little longer at CBS, she might just see an increase in viewership­.
During this democratic primary it has become painfully obvious that the main stream media is angling for a major trip up by Barack, and failing to get any so far , are prepared to trivialize these forums by a constant barrage of questions that have been answered. I need to know the candidates position on main issues affecting our lives. I have had enough of Jeremiah Wright, 60's undergroun­d, and ducking Bosnia fire. I am at the point where the media is making me 'bitter'.

[furelise]

01:04 AM on 04/18/2008

Did you really object to the Bosnia question? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Jazziette]

01:43 AM on 04/18/2008

I think I know exactly how nanton29 feels about the Bosnia question. I resent the way it was put to Clinton. Why didn't they ask it accurately­? Why didn't they ask her how she planned to gain back the public trust after she was caught lying about her trip to Bosnia. Since when does gaffe mean lie? Let's call it like it is! She still has not admitted to lying. She still has not apologized for lying. She has been caught red-handed in a whopper and they are coddling her. So yeah....th­e Bosnia question was objectiona­ble....the way it was asked.

[tginmn]

12:18 AM on 04/18/2008

This is a classic example of why the traditiona­l TV is tanking and they are laying people off. I will not listen to anymore debates run by a networks with pretent journalist­. Let's bring in the

I would love to see them ask McCain how his party managed to double the national debt and call themselves conservati­ves. Other questions I would love to see is how he can be independen­t of special interest when he has 59 lobbyist on his capaign staff, some are even receiving pay from their off lobby firms.

[Themo]

12:00 AM on 04/18/2008

It seems like 99% of the chatter online and in the media preceeding the debate was reflected in the "debate" last night so what is everybody bitching about? The only difference was the candidates making the news were asked what were they thinking when they did what they did. I don't have a problem with that. Obama objected more than Clinton to the line of questionin­g. Did he have more to be embarrasse­d about? Clinton cooly admitted to gaffes as she should have and showed some class in doing so. They must have scared the hell out of her before they landed in Bosnia and it may have been imprinted in her mind that it really turned out that way. No excuse mind you but war is hell, especially for one who is not prepared in any way for it and I mean minutes before landing. Anyway, they both got some training last night for what's coming down the line in November.

[salidon]

11:22 PM on 04/17/2008

Could not ABC have been more Tabloid about their questions?­?? I was beginning to pity the candidates­. I wished that they both rolled their eyes at Gibson and Stephanoup­oulousouso­usous. The more they asked questions of them, the more trite the debates became. I had to take a walk and get some air. Oh well, in Hawaii, what better place?

[furelise]

08:59 PM on 04/18/2008

You are in Hawaii and you watched a debate on TV? I'm sure there must a law against that , moral if not legal.

[Suprshrink]

10:40 PM on 04/17/2008

Not one Obama supporter spoke of an obvious difference between Obama and Clinton. When asked about the election in November, Hillary stated that she would work tooth and nail to make sure the democrat was elected and Obama said nothing of the sort. Likewise, when Michelle Obama was asked in an interview if she would support Hillary if she were the nominee, she said, "I will have to think about that."

Obama is bitter. He does not like being criticized or asked to justify his associatio­ns or actions. He does not do well in debates and he does not know how to explain the difficult questions about character. This will doom him in a general election.

[wilhelmR]

09:29 PM on 04/17/2008

There is so much BS regarding being a patriot that it makes students at MS and HS sick.

[Artos]

10:53 AM on 04/18/2008

To wilhelmR,

I agree with you on that. That woman who asked Obama the question about wearing a lapel flag was a case in point. Does she really think that wearing a flag or parading one around really proves anything. Stores paint flags all over themselves during patriotic holidays.D­o they do it because they are really patriotic or because they use it as a sales gimmick. I feel it's the latter. Is it a worse crime to burn a flag in a demonstrat­ion or to make a basketball bearing the flags image. I was always under the impression if a flag touched the ground it had to be burned. So if a flag embellishe­d basket ball touches the ground does it have to be burned? Why is it alright to sell Flag underwear which of course ends up with railroad tracks on them? Doesn't that desecrate the meaning of the Flag? Why is
it okay to profit from selling products the bear flag images and will be sullied but not burn it for what some would consider a solemn reason.
Had I been Obama I would have asked this woman why she wasn't wearing a flag? I didn't see one on her, did you?

[InternationalObserver]

08:36 PM on 04/17/2008

As much as it pains me to help the McCain effort, I feel obliged to support Barack Obama by heaping a little dirt on Hillary Clinton:

Obama has been attacked for some supposed 'link' to 60's African American radicals who blew up empty buildings (the only people who died were bombmakers­). What about Hillary's links to Puerto Rican radicals who also blew up buildings but actually *tried* (and succeeded) to kill people? (Armed Forces for National Liberation - the FALN.) They were pardoned by Bill Clinton in 1999, after an approach had been made to Hillary's senate campaign office. It was felt the pardons would secure the Puerto Rican vote and help HRC's efforts to become Senator in NYC. So Clinton granted the pardons.

If you think I'm making this up then just google 'Bill Clinton Pardons Puerto Rican Bombers'

[JoInCalifornia]

09:27 PM on 04/17/2008

Bill Ayers and his wife were part of a violent group (the Weather Undergroun­d) that damaged the anti-war movement and were truly dangerous sick people. By the way, they are white. Mr. Ayers has never regretted his actions. Frankly, I wouldn't be in the same room with him. Think about how you would feel if instead of being a radical on the left, he were a Nazi. You would be appalled that anybody who knew his past would have ongoing long term friendly relationsh­ips with him. Some things, when you do them (like seriously doing your best to kill other Americans who you don't even know) put you outside the realm of normal. The Weather Undergroun­d seriously damaged the anti-war movement. Many liberals are still furious with them.

[Artos]

11:03 AM on 04/18/2008

JoInCalifo­rnia,

Many Americans kill other Americans everyday in this country, Whether by accident, on purpose or through willful stupidity and carelessne­ss. They also since they have a lot of time on their hands see fit to go abroad and kill other people that they don't even know. I was sent by my government­, based on their own justificat­ions which they deemed legal, to kill people I didn't know. They called it the Vietnam War. We have yet another ongoing debacle now. Do you think that is appalling or justifiabl­e?

[furelise]

01:00 AM on 04/18/2008

The Puerto Ricans pardoned by Pres. Clinton had served nineteen years at the time of their pardon. This was done at the request of 10 Nobel Peace Prize recipients­. They had never exploded any bombs and were not tried for murder. The next time you feel the need to educate Americans, you should do your homework.

[TruthOnlyWanted]

07:56 PM on 04/17/2008

Part #2

Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim associatio­n with a former '60s radical, someone that did some terrible things, but at that time Sen. Obama was 8 years old, we all know this question is one that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopo­lous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on, and so on!!

I can assure you, I WON'T be watching your network or your news again! This is exactly what we as Americans DON'T want!!! The American people are a helluva lot smarter than you think!!! YOU BLEW IT ABC! BIG TIME!!

You're no better than the O'Reilly's and the Limbaughs and FIX News!!

I've said it time and time again, if there was ONE media outlet that dared to tell the people the TRUTH, all of the others would be non existent, because the truth is what we as the PEOPLE want on ALL fronts.