Where Is the League of Women Voters When We Need Them?

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

Comments

[timinhi]

You guys get all bent out of shape because your candidate repeatedly does poorly in the debates, no matter WHO sponsors them, and you just don't seem to get that his performance in debates is a reflection of his intellectual acuity under stressful situations. Get a clue: Being President is all about stressful and even hostile situations. If he can't even handle hostile questioning from a couple of TV news personalities, how is he going to deal with Putin, or Ahmedinejad, or even a host of American Republican politicians who would love nothing better than to embarrass him? You guys want to kill the messenger, but we've had televised presidential debates since Kennedy/Nixon in '60, and it is what it is. It's one of the "trials by fire" that every serious presidential candidate must endure. Clearly Obama, supposedly a "great orator," recognizes his failings in this area because he's already declined more than once to debate his opponent. Doesn't say a lot for his courage under fire. From the ridiculous outcry from the Obama camp about how "unfair" ("Wah-wah-wah!") this and previous debates have been to their candidate, I'm surprised that Marty Kaplan is only saying that the Networks should get out of the "debate business" and instead isn't calling for the abolishment of debates altogether--at least until Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House.

[ronspri]

More of the glories of privatization of the entire world. The idea that nothing should be done in common for the common good or not for profit throws away much of what would make me a proud UNITED States citizen.
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.

[MinerSam]

GOOD MORNING!

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.

[swkidder]

Let's see if I understand the proces ...
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?

[Tulka2]

We must have media reform. Thomas Jefferson remarked some like.. "Better a free press than the right to vote". It means your vote counts for nothing if you are being fed disinfomation.

[Bobotheclown]

All I hear is "wouldn't it be nice if we had ____________. " As if this is a wish that we are waiting for our parents to fulfill. What we have now in American politics is the predictable outcome of the changes to the rules of politics that are installed in our law.

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.

[LightningJoe]

Umm, Marty, one of the first ten people in the phone book is AAAACME Pest Control, and we know what they've been sniffing.

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.

[Troyxx]

You are so very correct. The American Presidential race is a farce and I can only imagine what the other world leaders are thinking about the world's 'superpower'. They look so silly and stupid and have caused some much human suffering (as only a silly and stupid superpower can) it makes me physically ill.

[Suprshrink]

What seems funny to me about the complaints against the format of the ABC debate is that the bloggers actually set the stage for this and now complain about it. When I read the posts in this and other blogs, I see people taking pot shots at one of the candidates. I hear people using foul language to attack a candidate. There is subtle and blatant sexism, racism, and agism. The tone of the blogs is so dark and hateful. So exactly why are you so upset about the ABC debate. They were only giving you what you want.

[mamacat]

Seems to me that one or the other of the candidates should insist that from here on out, the debates be conducted by the LWV, or at least several of the debates should be conducted by them. If they don't have the money, then that issue should be addressed. Most of the debates so far have been ludicrously inept, and embarassingly partisan.

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.

[Dartanion]

Marty, thanks for exposing so called ABC News debate. Charles Gibson and George Stephenopolis
were totally unprofessional! For the first 45 minutes there was nothing but cheap shots and tabloid!

[Margalo]

The "debate" was a scandal. None of the "debates" were actually debates but Q & A forums. The League of Women Voters is not capable of hosting a truly open and fair debate. It, too, is locked into the two-party system. We need debates which ask each candidate the same number of questions, not 1 or 2 for one candidate and 10 each for others. The mass media deliberately shorted Kucinich, Paul and others. In the general election, we need to permit all parties and independent candidates to speak. If there is any attempt to narrow the field to more serious candidates, the narrowing must be fair and only eliminate the candidates whose names are in the mix for the fun of it. There was no fairness to Ralph Nader the last times he ran. The Green Party candidate should have equal time with the others, and so should Libertarian, etc. What we really need is a multiparty legislature, which represents the people proportionately. And we need to vote by the single vote ranking, which eliminates any runoffs in that type of election by providing it on the ballot. We the people must demand better service from the government, parties, media and individual candidates, because we are getting the circus we deserve by our passivity.

[JustMyWords]

Not only the same number of questions, but wouldn't it be a nice thought to ask the candidates the same questions? Ask ALL of them for their ideas on the economy, the war, unemployment, international affairs, or whatever. If you're going to waste our time asking about lapel pins, UFO sitings, or other idiotic trivia, for god's sake at least ask ALL of them the same inane question.

[thatvisionthing]

Yes and ask ALL candidates about their lapel pins. And give the candidates mirrors to hold up to the moderators so the moderators can look at their own nonexistent lapel pins. What CRAP.

[Graciela]

With all due respect Margalo, your League of Women Voters is not the League I nor Mr. Kaplan knows.

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.

[websmith]

These debates are just another tool the MSM special interest groups try to use to get their candidate elected. That was made pretty clear in Florida when they had a bunch of morons on stage giggling while another moron asked an irrelevant question.

This was worse.

[Graciela]

The September 24, 2004 Bill Moyers (PBS “NOW”) interview with George Farah, author of No Debate (Seven Stories Press, April 30, 2004), provides an interesting history of how the Commission on Presidential Debates came into being. http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript339_full.html

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.”

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.”

[liberalnfree]

I agree 100% that the League of Women Voters should have control of the debates again so that we can have substantive issues discussed such as the economy, the war, foreign policy, health care. Those are the proper criteria for deciding who should be president.

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.

[mjc]

Maybe that's it, leftleaner. All this bluster about what a terrible piece of journalistic analyzing the whole debate was is because Barack Obama did as he has always done in almost every debate: blown it! I don't know the sainthood of voters who don't appreciate getting into the character and problems candidates face, from their own or someone else's weakness who they associate with. Voters are probably not as interested in the big issues of health care, getting out of Iraq, the economy as political junkies are, and I include myself here. The debate was supposed to be entertaining in that sense that it might be a revelation of the TRUE personalities of the two candidates. Having been a member of the League of Women Voters for many years, think Leagues all across this nation have trouble filling seats when the debate is limited to certain issues, of interest to the League but not so much to the average voter. Can it be that the elitists are objecting to getting down and dirty, so to speak?? Obamacons are probably not as much interested in an educated vote as a gotcha format.

[LeftLeaner]

Where was all the outrage for the last 1-1/2 years of Hillary non-stop bashing?

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.

[pbitondo]

I long for the likes of Pauline Frederick and Elizabeth Drew, Eric Severied and all of those other who knew how to conduct a fruitful debate. Where are the real journalists who give us the news and ask questions of the candidates to help us get some of the views on policy? This was absolutely a disgraceful event.

[Garvagh]

Hear hear!

[dapperd72]

I've never seen anything like "Media Worship" of Obama. The major media have consistently pandered to Clinton, lest they incur her wrath. Obama is a grown man who takes all these ridiculous insults in stride. Clinton whines & cries foul every time any of her lies or distortions are exposed. Obama has consistently given intellectually honest answers to questions about his past & present associations, but Clinton's parallel affiliations have rarely if ever been examined by the major media. Non-stop "Hillary-bashing" for the past 1.5 years is clearly a figment of Leftleaner's imagination. If she'd at least make an honest attempt to be intellectually honest instead of going out of her way to insult our collective intelligence & slander Obama's every move, then she might be worthy of respect. My reasons for opposing her candidacy are utterly contrary to those of my arch-Republican family, particularly my father & uncle (his fraternal-twin brother) who despise Clinton along traditional right-wing lines a la Limbaugh, Hannity & Liddy. If their GOP claims against Clinton were remotely accurate, I'd be much likelier to support her. However, her pandering to Republican principles precludes me from stooping to her level of character assassination.

[mjc]

dapperd72...., you must not watch much of the talk shows on Sunday, especially Tim Russert or Chris Matthews or Joe Scarborough, etcetera. Every Sunday Clinton is attacked as unworthy, unwinable and a liar; not once in a while, EVERY SUNDAY. Haven't heard or seen Hillary "slander Obama's every move" but maybe you can be more specific.

[Sneakerface]

I'd hate for you to go to all the trouble of actually reading this 4 paragraph blog, but if you did, you might notice that Obama's name is not mentioned once. It isn't about Obama, it is about the endless "gotcha" questions, and they do it to Clinton too.

[mabelle55]

Yeah, but the BIG DIFFERENCE is that the left blogosphere in their hatred of Hillary Clinton allowed the MSM to go on and on and on and on in their relentless and senseless attacks against Hillary Clinton, often joining in the "fun" and adding to the insults.

Now that their golden boy, BIG O, faced the same lashes that HRC has received for months they take notice and want to do something about it.

Nice bit of sexism in that, eh? Oh, but they don't want to talk about that - probably too much of a "distraction."