Would someone please get the networks out of the presidential debate business?
The networks and the national press love their gotchas, their -gates, their "controversies," their heat. They, alas, are not the grownups in the political process. The grownups are the voters, who -- lamely, in the mind of the political class -- are troubled by the war, the economy and boring stuff like that. Stuff that networks think make for lousy television.
I don't blame news producers for doing what they think their job is, which is scoring bragworthy Nielsens. I don't blame political talking heads for being infatuated with the narratives that they themselves create and market. Blaming them would be like blaming babies for banging their spoons on their highchairs, or addicts for wanting their fix.
But I do blame the candidates, the campaigns and the parties for being complicit with the corporate politainment circus. The first ten people in the phone book could do a better job of asking candidates questions that voters care about. There is no freaking reason in the world to grant the networks a rotating monopoly on staffing and broadcasting these debates. The whole media political system we now suffer from is tilted entirely toward trivial combat, pathetic niggling over words, ridiculous sideshows, and inside baseball. Now that we know how awful it can be, are we really powerless to stop it from continuing to waste our time and turning our political process into a third-rate version of a condescending reality show?
Sorry, I've just got to get a grip on this bitter thing.
Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan
Most, even in our own country, have started calling it America and not the United States. I refuse to use just the word America when refering to the United States and I wish others would too.
Where were all the Obama supporters, for the last 6 months when Chris Mathews and Tim Russert bagan their SWIFTBOATING OF HILLARY and have never stopped!
They are controlled by the Republicans, beholden to them for Media Consolidation. Have therefore been trashing our better candidate and (boosting) brainwashing the children that the over 100K
baby boomers are having flashbacks over.
I saw no Obamite up in arms when, last week CNN had a big suggestive sign implying that Hillary is racist. IS HILLARY PLAYING THE RACE CARD? it said.
And how about when the strikingly handsome Hispanic Mayor of LA who supports Hillary was made to look black on CNN?
Or the self hating psychotic women that Chris Mathews had on night after night after night trashing Hillary without an ounce of SUBSTANCE in their comments?
As for Obama: There is no reason why not to vet him as to whether he is electable. AND YOU AINT SEEN NOTHING YET. Cocain use, Resko's corruption in connection with Iraq, and the fact that he ahs not done his job of oversight on NATO in Afghanistan. If he were truly a uniter it would be one thing but Obama has done nothing to prove that which has been an EMPTY Slogan. I speek of what i know. have seen 27 Obama stump speeches.
1) We the Public lease the airwaves, which we own, to major broadcasters.
2) They decide when to hold debates during our electoral process.
3) They decide who gets to participate in those debates which essentially defines the choices we've given of whom to elect.
4) They decide who moderates those debates.
5) They decide what questions the candidates get to answer.
And when do we wake up and take our political process, and our airwaves, back from those who have served us so badly with the very resources and tools we were foolish enough to place in their hands?
We have removed the fairness doctrine that would have outlawed broadcasts such as Fox News. We have no legal protection of a reporters sources which has made real political news and information dry up. We have no public funding of a national effort to provide unbiased information to the public. Newspapers that are being put out of business by an ideological ownership class cannot at the same time provide truth and insight for the rest of us.
The government once insisted that broadcasters provide objective news programs that were in the public interest even if they made no money for the parent corporation. Now news organizations must compete for ratings with reality programs based on fart jokes. What else could possibly be the outcome of this legal abrogation of the right of the people to have a free and working press?
To fix it the American people have to come together and demand their right to a First Amendment that is protected against the encroachments of the marketplace. Without legislation we will never have a fair election again.
I think the network's major problem is that the word "contest" makes them think "game show," and they just can't unwrap their minds from that "Come on Dooowwwn!" stance.
And now for a message from our sponsors...
---
Stop TV, before it kills again.
I remember with longing the debates from years past, when I could spend more attention on the politicians and the issues than on the men or women asking the questions.
were totally unprofessional! For the first 45 minutes there was nothing but cheap shots and tabloid!
Please do read my earlier related posting, and take the time to read the Moyers-Farah 2004 interview with care.
Having been a state-level League president, I am knowledgeable about how the League of Women Voters works, and am very sensitive to criticisms of the LWV by those who have not been League members or leaders, have not participated in their events, and who are not familiar with their principles and their almost seven decades of outstanding history.
The League's reputation for fairness and objectivity and significant contributions to civic life has been well earned.
This was worse.
The nonpartisan League of Women Voters sponsored presidential debates between 1976-1984. The two-party elites wanted to write the debate rules, so they locked the League out of sponsoring debates in 1988 when Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush negotiated the first Memoranda of Understanding. They handed it to the League on a “take it or leave it†basis.
The League had a respected and trusted name to protect and refused to implement a “secret document†negotiated by the two party’s Establishment. Their response: “We have no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public. Under these circumstances, the League is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debates.â€
The Commission on Presidential Debates advertises itself as a 10-member bi-partisan, non-profit organization for the purpose of co-sponsoring the presidential/vice presidential debates. Can such a commission serve the best interests of the American public when it is basically controlled by the operatives of the two parties and their candidates.
In No Debate, Farah “provides extensive background on how the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), dominated by Democratic and Republican party operatives, took over the debate process...and then entrenched their parties in power.â€
I would also urge the Huffington Post to abandon it's tabloid attacks on the Clintons-- practically every day is a banner headline mocking Hillary Clinton-- the worst example, the least newsworthy, was the recent comparison of her to Annie Oakley, complete with photograhs. Unfortunately the Huffington Post is one of the worst trivializers of the campaign, hyping every Republican style substanceless attack on Hillary Clinton they can find.
I can't believe how everyone is jumping to Obama's rescue.
I've never seen anything like it. It's like he's a little kid who can't stand up for himself.
The Media's Obama worship has been going on far too long, and a little bit of background questioning should be tolerated - especially as the frontrunner.