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

[dapperd72]

Greens, Libertarians & other "independent" candidates should be recognized in the general elections. Their primaries should be covered by the major media, but Democratic debates make that aspect irrelevant to this discussion. The aforementioned quote from LCV about the 2 major parties' mutual conspiracy to hoodwink the public underscores why I abandoned the Democrats after 10 years in 2000 & joined the Greens for life. I'm sick of the hypocrisy and prostitution to multinational corporations to prevent true progressive change. IF Obama is the Democratic nominee, I'd make a major exception to vote for the first Democrat since 1992 in good conscience. I somewhat reluctantly voted for Clinton then before voting Green in every subsequent Presidential race. Cynthia McKinney may be the Green candidate, Bob Barr may be the Libertarian nominee & I'll surely vote for McKinney if Clinton somehow seizes the Democratic nomination. Obama has always been the underdog despite his recent success, while Clinton is the powermonger. I'd be thrilled to vote for any woman who my conscience allows, regardless of party, ie. Susan Sarandon, but Clinton is no feminist. I'd have to sell my soul to Satan or L. Ron Hubbard before I'd vote for her in any race. If the people all vote their individual consciousnesses, then the result would be magnaninous in its reflection of the people's will, instead of this "lesser of 2 evils" nonsense. Let's all get with the program & take back our country. Smash the state as Thomas Jefferson prescribed in

[Fez]

Amen and pass the ammunition. It's time for the citizens to take back the political process from the politicians and the newspimps. I suggest that we have groups like Girls' and Boys' State or the League of Women Voters sponsor the debates, ask the questions, and restore a sense of civility to what has become an irrelevant and deeply undemocratic process. In fact, having young people ask the questions makes perfect sense... they will have to live with the decisions made by the "leaders." As for the "journalists" who have sullied the campaign with their trivial, inane, and pathetic "questions­"... not one of them is smart enough to pour warm piss out of a boot.

[cadawa]

Let's go even farther and get the networks out of the news business. Time to stop their dangerous meddling.

[mabelle55]

Oh, right. And replace it with what? The left hemisphere's take on the news? So then we'd have the left and the right - different except not...equa­lly corrosive, equally dismissive, equally untruthful, equally pandering to their special interests, and equally as fascist.

Tell you what: why don't you (the left) just join hands with the right-wingers, since you both share more in common than you do differences, when it comes to honesty, truth, fairness and objectivity in "news" coverage? That way we - the public - will get ZERO democracy!

How about that? Does that work for ya?

[SeaBlood]

I have hazy memories, from better days, of hearing about something called "the league of women voters" and how they sponsored tv debates and other things meant to inform us citizens on important issues. I was too young and ignorant to appreciate this institution, but now I sorely miss those ladies. Alas, they too have fallen victim to the same malady that infects the rest of this country, the military industrial complex.

[Vibrani]

They lost me after the first few minutes. I saw they weren't letting up on their silly line of questioning - it became a waste of my time. They aren't talking about the real issues and I abhor news people trying to manipulate the public. Too many debates, and no substance. I decided I'm not voting for either the Democrats or Republicans. Where are the Independents, the Libertarians, the Greens, the candidates from the other parties? Why are we always forced to have to decided between only 2 candidates? It's not because people will only vote for them. It's because the media WANTS us to do that and ignore the rest - make it like we really don't have a choice or alternative. I say ENOUGH.

[druidmary]

Gee. go after the media....W­hen Barack Obama finally gets drilled, they scream media bias.

where were you "screamers'when they were unfair to Hillary?

Hillary supporters have great websites that sort out the real stories.

http://hillaryisourchoice.com/

[estreya]

Here's the difference. When Hillary was whining about media bias, the media was actually indulging her. To this very day, she represents a banquet of "gotcha" moments the media can seize at any time. In Obama's case, the media has MANUFACTURED "gotcha" moments for no other reason than tabloid appeal. But instead of whining, he remains respectful and thoughtful in his explanations. That's the difference.

[EinChicago]

Yeah the media forced Obama to sit in wright's church for 20 years and forced Obama to call middle american voters "typical white" people who botterly cling to guns and god.

Yeah. They forced him.

[Goldie9]

Vib-- And I'm sure you were screaming bloody murder at the media while they chanted and harped about Hillary's "inevitability" last fall? Or did you buy into their chanting???

[noneIn2008]

Seems like you want objective reporting and events. That does not make good sound bites.
In the first place, it is absurd to use a debates as a way to select a President? Style over content.

Do blame the producers. They live to addict us to this crap.
Maybe next time, we should have a Survivor series to select the President?
And in the 60's they called TV the vast wasteland. Imagine if they could have seen it today.

[DLSteinhardt]

Thanks, Marty!

I kept thinking about the League every time ABC did one of their ridiculous audience reaction shots (including several of Sen. Clinton's home section, with Chelsea and Gen. Clark and another man I don' t recognize).

One of the key agreements for the League's debates was that there never be any audience shots, because they inevitably editorialize improperly.

And there's NO END of what was improper about ABC last night.

[SMAGGIE]

Personally, I do not believe we will ever get the media to stop backing anyone single candidate. They are supposed to be journalists, but they get on the air and push for their personal preference. That, in my mind is not a real journalist. They are supposed to present the truth about ALL candidates, not just the ones they do not like. Last nights debate was mishandled, in my point of view. The questions really didn't point to the real issues in thie election. We want a person to tell us what he/she will do, not what has already happened. The past is just that. We do not need anyone to tell us all about it.

[Hattie]

I'm a League of Women Voters member who can tell you exactly why the League no longer does these debates. It's too expensive for us. Most of us belong to that very unpopular demographic as well: older white women. So young women and men don't want to be associated with us.
In short, we lack the money, members and energy for this huge job.

[tililek]

You forgot to mention that Congress (with its usual wisdom) preempted the League and wanted to be responsible themselves for the campaigns and the debates. Probably because when the League organized the debates more substantive questions were asked. Congress prefers trivia so we, the voters, won't be too informed.

[Hattie]

Here is my suggestion: form a net based organization like the League. Model it after Move On. but make it strictly non-partisan, not affiliated with the Democratic Party.
The League is non-partisan in the sense that it does not support candidates. It does, however, take positions of matters of public policy and lobbies at all levels of government. Some issues are: sunshine in government, public funding of candidates, eliminating the death penalty, and so forth. You can do it!

[Sneakerface]

I was thinking the League of Women Voters would be just the thing to go back to. But after seeing your post, Hattie, it occurs to me that this election in particular would present a strong apparent bias towards Hillary, given that the demographic you describe for LWV has been shown statistically to be heavily in favor of her.

[tomsemioli]

Want television to change? Stop watching the networks, stop buying products from the advertisers. Demand better programming.

[BongWater]

Great topic for a post Mr. Kaplan. I just posted this quote from the League of Women Voters on the main thread. I also whined about HuffingtonPost not covering the issue, sorry.

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[helenb2]

Bravo for the exact quotation!! "PERPETRATE A FRAUD", and "HOODWINKING", are indeed the perfect words - thanks to the "BongWater" post of the LWVUS's very phrases from ? years before! The League's announceme­nt.referre­d to the outrageous demands of the 2 major political parties who were willing to perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.

To show good faith and to benefit the American voter, the press and the political parties need only go to www.lwvus.org, to invite the League of Women Voters once again to administer non-partisan, fair and equitable candidate debates.

Of course, the political parties would have to promise not to pick up their marbles and leave the game! This would only repeat what the parties did once before, when the LWV would not tolerate the two parties' fraud on, and hoodwinking of, the American public.

[gardenbookie]

I've never been so disgusted with the "mediators?" of (what is supposed to be) a POLITICAL debate. Charlie and George should be made to stand in the corner for about a week where they can consider the embarrassment they made of themselves. Why didn't they just pull the basket of rotten tomatoes out from under the table and pitch them straight at Senator Obama?

And Mrs. Clinton stood right there and took it all in with that ever-familiar sh*t-eating grin on her face. Why didn't they just ask her where she gets her hair done? That would have been the toughest question she would have received! She certainly found a new reason why she "misspoke" about her dodging bullets in Bosnia scenario, didn't she? What a bunch of B.S.

I applaud Senator Obama for maintaining his decorum. This wasn't a debate, it was the Gong Show. But the guy getting the gong never left the stage.

[Sneakerface]

Sorry to be OT, but when you mentioned Hillary's grin, my mind flashed to a clip shown on tv yesterday of Condi Rice being asked about the info that came out recently about her administration's involvement in torture. Secretary Rice seemed to thing that torturing people was absolutely the funniest thing she'd ever heard. Which is why we need to stop worrying about flag pins and misstatements, and get to the task of throwing these criminals out of office.

[whimsicalpig]

I totally agree.

how different this whole campign season would have been with the league of women voters in charge.

there wouldn't have been that awful ufo question and perhaps some of the candidates wouldn't have been given such a pass by the media and so much extra attention.

likewise, for the democrats and the republicans, again, many of the truly qualified candidates were eliminated way too early for ratings reasons, rather than for their qualifications.

maybe next time the 2 parties will have learned a lesson and yank this option away from the media before it becomes another American Idol contest again.

[dagumpster]

I couldn't agree with Kaplan more. The mainstream media has done a very poor job handling the election campaign. I could see it coming last year when the media was already salivating about the upcoming campaign. They have pretty much ignored the issues that the electors are concerned about and are trying to influence voters with any faux pas the candidates make. Could it be the media is too ignorant to understand the issues of the day they are not comfortable with approaching the real issues? They seem to be relying too much on you tube to get their news and then beat it into the ground. I have heard enough about Tuzla, Wright and bitterness of Americans. Meanwhile McCain, because he has the his party's nomination, is proceeding on his merry way because no one is in a position to attack him now although Obama is making some attempt when he is not fielding Clinton's attacks and the media. There is very little debate about the issues when the candidates do come up with policy solutions. I would rather know how practical and possible these solutions put forth by the candidates are.

[helenb2]

The LWVUS for years ran all presidenti­al-candida­te debates fairly - as genuine debates, with equal time, alternating order of replies, impartial and significant questions selected from hundreds of nationwide Leagues' questions.

If memory serves me, this is what happened ( can historians/LWV-ers provide the date, please?) :

When the two main political parties (D and R) insisted that their candidates be allowed to wear earphones during debates - to listen to advice and comments from their respective, offstage, political handlers/teams - the LWV said "NO".

To the League of Women Voters, and to the public, this offstage "prompting" was and would be totally uinacceptable in public debates aiming to reveal the candidates' qualities (or lack of them). The LWV was and is correct that this could be NO WAY to promote an informed electorate.

The League then (date?) correctly refused to be party to this manipulation of the voter and the debates, which had been presented precisely to help the voters distinguish between the candidates, their knowledge, their intelligence, and their competence.

The major political parties then decided to take over theadministration of these presidential debates, and astime has shown, the parties invited the press to take part also. Today many voters have no idea of how superbly nd fairly the LWV presented thee debates---- in order to have "an informed electorate", the mantra of the League.

Last night's pathetic demonstration of inept press questions reminds us to invite the LWV to run the debates again.