Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
Paddy Chayefsky had it right of course way back in 1976 in Network. Entertainment divisions have virtually taken over news divisions at the networks. Entertainment was supposed to make the profit to sustain journalism. The news divisions weren't counted on to make money. Their thing was to get the story. It was deemed necessary back then to a country attempting to be a democracy.
Now that entertainment rules and news has to make money, are we surprised that a prime time, middle-of-the-week, over-the-air presidential debate would be conducted on an 8th grade level?
It's about ratings. You show advertisers better ratings; you get more money from them. ABC certainly got the ratings: more than ten million viewers. It was the most watched debate of the campaign.
Do you think ABC didn't know who their audience would be? Do you think this wasn't researched well in advance and that the questions fed Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos weren't geared to that audience?
This was not a debate on a Saturday night on MSNBC last summer when the audience would be vastly different: more political junkies with a serious interest in the process and the issues well before the lower-tiered candidates were weeded out.
This was a prime time audience on ABC on a Wednesday night that drew a larger, less sophisticated audience. They may have even been, dare I say it, a bit bitter about politicians.
ABC's market research apparently showed that keeping questions to the level of flag pins and what your pastor thinks would draw and keep an audience tuned in.
Hence, the worst debate ever.
If the news departments were independent, ratings wouldn't matter as much as journalism. The challenge should be to get audience numbers without dumbing it down. The aim would be to skillfully raise the audience to the level of the candidates, not the reverse; to explain to a broad audience how major events and issues directly affect their lives instead of pandering to ignorance to make a buck. We heard a lot about gasoline, because most Americans know gasoline, but was it linked to the war in Iraq, depleting energy resources or climate change?
We need to be diverted sometimes to refocus on what's serious. That's the value of entertainment. But when what's serious is treated like a diversion too, then we're in trouble.
TV news has been this way for decades. We shouldn't be surprised. But we should be very worried.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
This entire argument highlights IMO a greater issue, the liberal media's overwhelming favoritism toward Obama, and that's actually the more substantive issue here.
When Clinton was the front-runner, that was the "excuse" for her getting the majority of the hammering. If Obama makes it to the general election, you can bet he's going to get roughed up plenty and that these issues are going to come up again.
I know Obama supporters and the Obamedia are angry about this debate - well take a walk in my shoes. This is how the frustraition feels when the media is unduly influencing this election.
Obama sure never complained about being the liberal media's darling for all these months. So . . . he can cry me a river. He's still way ahead on the media bias scale.
This is Democracy folks..
Dont take it personally, just engage and enjoy.
I fully agree with a prior post that If the point of the endless questions to Senator Obama was to address "electability," why wasn't Hillary Clinton asked about the mathematical impossibility of her getting the nomination?
ABC: "always beneath contempt."
Even Turner regrets the sale. another BTW, he didnt manage his news division. He just invented it.
Our focus should be on the fake Hillary Clinton we have seen for the past few months-- the one whose body is inhabited by either Kang or Kodos while the competent, thoughtful, progressive real Hillary Clinton is trapped in a glass tube on their spaceship.
Because the real Hillary Clinton would have responded: "You know, Charles, all this talk about Reverend Wright and bitter comments I'll leave to others to discuss if they want because I'm here to talk about the issues which are most important to Americans. Senator Obama is a talented, remarkable candidate and Democrats are lucky to have him working on our behalf-- but I'm running for President because I am better qualified to turn our country around."
Instead, the fake Hillary Clinton talked about church bulletins given to the leader of Hamas and shootin' guns with Pa.
At least ABC didn't create animated flames surrounding Obama's head, though Birch Barlow/Rush Limbaugh might as well as have written the questions.
I lost brain cells watching that debate.
The questions were an assault to my intelligence. Can I sue ABC. . .? With every piece of legislation favoring corporations and not individuals, I seriously doubt that I can.
After Obama's speech on race, some were marveling over how he was speaking to us as adults and how utterly refreshing that was.
Though "mechanistic reductionism often masquerades as maturity," I'd totally like to see more of his gracious and informed tone, and less of these handsomely paid, superficial, bobble heads, masquerading as truth tellers exploiting dumb inconsequential crap.
Oh and "Stepontopofthis" is interviewing "McLame" this Sunday. I think I'll miss it.
Have a nice weekend.
Ironically, Mrs. McCabe is precisely the type of bitter voter Barack was talking about. She feels overwhelmed by the hardships in her life, abandoned by her government, and is resigned to the belief that things will never get better. She thinks that her vote doesn't count, because no matter who she votes for she never sees any visceral improvement in her quality of life. To compensate for the feeling of being politically impotent, she latches on to absurdities like patriotism as the standard against which a candidate must be measured. What's worse is that the powers that be encourage such flawed political discourse because it ensures that the status quo that has empowered them remains unchanged. As long as they can keep the attention of voters like Nash McCabe diverted from the real issues they will be able to increasingly tighten their suffocating grip. Just like an athlete diverting the attention of the referee so that their teammate has an opportunity to cheat without being seen.
It's time the oligarchical sycophants know that they can't get away with it anymore.
In 2004, I worked for an African American boss, a CFO in a for-profit hospital. We talked about Obama's speech at the Convention. But when it came down to it, and this that CFO mentality out there, he voted for Bush because he did not want his taxes raised. This is why Gibson stayed on the Capital Gains Tax question. Now, raise your hands, you "bitter" hard working people out there, if you are worried about the Capital Gains tax this election???
The Democratic Party - has a reputation for same ole' same ole in the country at large, but they always take the bait when it comes to taxes. I wish one of the potential Dem nominees would just say - hey - we're going to lower taxes. Just say it .... the Earth will jolt ... and then everyone will realize that the Republicans can't use that line anymore. Just say it ... and not a word more ... until the Republicans ask ---- How are you going to pay for all this debt ???? Are you crazy ???
I'm going to have a proposal of how - next week.
We had a few words about the debate:
http://binx101.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/debate-or-da-bait-abc-news-goes-springer/
Binx101
The Almost Daily Binx
www.binx101.wordpress.com
Well, Barack, Welcome to the wonderful world of American politics. Put your male ego away.
I heard Obama say it took 45 minutes to get to questions of substance. That was because he danced around the questions that undecided voters want some answers to. They (and I) want to know this man's character. He's new, he's unknown, he has some baggage he needs to explain.
If he is going to make it hard on us, than we are not going to vote for him. The American people are becoming distrustful of taking chances on an unknown surprise package.
She does seem to be a little tougher and that alone, is a plus.
As McCain looks older, Obama looks emptier, Hillary Clinton looks better. To bad she had to paint herself into a corner on some issues.