- BIG NEWS:
- Glenn Beck
- |
- ABC
- |
- NBC
- |
- CNN
- |
What If ABC Held a Debate, but Forgot to Show Up?
Read More:
Abc, ABC Debate, ABC News, Barack Obama, Charlie Gibson, Democratic Debate, George Stephanopoulos, Hillary Clinton, Media Coverage Of 2008 Election,
Media News
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
All night long, every time I'd think about the ABC "debate" (sic), three reactions rose up - 1) grind my teeth to an angry pulp, 2) let my head explode, or 3) type something to let the steam out.
This morning, I still can't believe I was able to make it through 45 minutes of the broadcast.
This was topflight journalism at its worst. This was ABC's old, flimsy history with threadbare sizzle packaged as news. It was a tabloid debate with tabloid questions. Matt Drudge come to life on a respectable stage. From what I subsequently discovered, they actually, eventually got around to real issues -- after over an hour. But watching it for a mere 45 minutes made me feel almost seedy. I wanted to shower to get the smarm off. I love news, I admire professional journalists, I cherish the Mainstream Media, even when they flounder, because it is the core of democracy. But this was embarrassing. This was pathetic. This was just a cheesy press conference with cheesy questions.
Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed. I'm sure they have all of their reasons wrapped nicely with a bow, explaining why they asked what they asked and why it was proper and good and noble. Sorry, it wasn't. They put this on in prime time across the nation, and turned it into a slimy, Fox Network reality show. A cross between Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? and Temptation Island. Something like, So, You Want to Be President?!
This was a disservice to America.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are running for President of the United States. It's a job that really, seriously matters. There are critically important issues facing the nation, right now. Last week, 81% of Americans said that they felt that the country had pretty seriously gotten off-track. There's the five-year Iraq War with 4,000 Americans dead and trillions spent. A national deficit pushing the country to recession. The G8 nations have expressed their tottering concern about the dollar. Global warming has put the entire globe at risk. The president and his top cabinet advisor are discovered in a memo to have discussed how to allow torture.
And for the first hour, the very first things these moderators could think of asking the two people in line to become the most powerful person in the world was -- what one of their pastors said? Who else also sat on a community board with him? Whether he used the best syntax in describing anger in America?
This was shameless. Hurtful.
And for all the post-debate commentators saying how "on the defensive" Barack Obama was -- most of them should be ashamed, as well, not pointing out how ghastly the questions were. They failed, as well.
What I saw during the "debate" (sic) made me completely agree with Senator Obama saying repeatedly that these questions are about things that don't matter in the lives of Americans. He wasn't "defensive." He was right. There's a difference. He answered the questions - same as he'd answered the questions before. But --
What his pastor said...Does Not Matter.
Who he served on a community board with...Does Not Matter.
Whether he is elitist for using the word "bitter"...Does Not Matter.
What matters is that there are angry people in Pennsylvania, and in America. What matters is what issues Barack Obama was dealing with on that community board he was a member of. What matters is what Barack Obama himself says.
What matters is the Iraq War. Torture. The Economy. Education. The price of gas. Domestic spying on Americans. Global warming. National security.
If Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos felt so-deeply compelled to toss in some of their Questions Lite -- even though they'd been asked and addressed repeatedly through the past weeks -- that's fine, ask them, at least the ones that dance on the edge of substance. But have the decency to hold them to later, after you've established the gravitas of the debate. Because otherwise, when you start by throwing out chum for the first hour, what you establish is that these are the things that "matter." And what comes later, nah, that's just afterthought.
Republican pundits do themselves no good pushing these empty topics, which they do only because they have no platform to run on. And Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos bought into it.
And Hillary Clinton did herself no good either by repeating that these things matter -- saying that "the Republicans will bring them up." News Flash: the Republicans will bring up just as much about her. And those won't substantively matter either. Or even necessarily be true.
Hillary Clinton has much good in her abilities. She has qualities that could make her an excellent president. But we are watching a person disintegrate before our eyes, throwing out the quality of her past and risking her future.
But this isn't about Hillary Clinton. This is about Charles Gibson, George Stephanopoulos and ABC "News." They were given a high responsibility to broadcast in the public interest. Instead, they spent the time in the empty gutter.
For the network of Lost and Desperate, they were both.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to ABC's Pennsylvania Democratic debate
Loading comments…
Don't Miss HuffPost Bloggers
1 of 4
Huffington Post Apps and Feeds
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Of course it was despicable. But why are you acting as if this is the first time a debate was unfair, outrageous, and insult to journalism? Where was your rage when NBC and MSNBC were doing the same thing? Oh I get it. It's only outrageous when it seems unfair to Senator Obama. But when NBC and MSNBC are unfair as well as sexist toward Hillary...
Ma'am, with all due respect, there have been no positive reviews of any of the debate moderators or sponsoring news agencies during this campaign season. In fact, it's been one of the reasons I avoided watching the debates the last 12 months.
The persistently asserted gender victimization crap is truly as old and stale as it is normally inaccurate in the context of this unholy campaign.
Absolutely correct Robert. If those who care to make a difference really cared they would turn-off ABC forever and boycott their sponsors. That would really make a difference.
Otherwise all we do on these blogs is vent with nothing changing.
Let those two yahoo's feel just a bit of the problems the rest of this country are experiencing. Maybe then Gibson wouldn't have his own personal capital gains issues to worry about.
You want to do something? Donate to the Obama campaign.
I am turning them off. I told them that in my comment on ABC News.com as well as, I wrote a separate "Feedback" entry. I'm done. I have mixed emotions today, because I am usually pretty good a judgement about things like this, for instance, I could only take Katie Couric a week before I decided I was not going to put myself through that, but these guys I had for the most part been impressed with, was I ever wrong. My national network evening news will come from Brian Williams. I don't know who the sponsors are and I would have to watch to find out. I will find out today on my farewell watch also, just to see how they respond to the 15,000 and counting comments that they received about this garbage. I know that "Charlie" is going to say something about it. Peter Jennings would have never stooped so low. I really do miss Peter.
ABC is also the network of he crapu-dramma "911-clintons fault"=- not the actual title but it should have been .
This is the network whose biggest contribution to journalism is Geraldo Rivera
Amen Robert. What a sham!
It wasn't ABC News, but rather ABC Screws...
I know everyone is really angry about the debate last night. I am, too. It was an embarrassing, one-sided attack: a futile effort to save Bill and Hillary Clintons' and the DLC's, ten-state, corporatist politics. But in reading the transcript this morning, I became alarmed at the proposal pertaining to Iran, that Clinton casually, tossed out in an effort to one-up Obama.
"Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region"
WTF. Is she out of her mind?
Your thoughts?
I agree, this was a stupid response that will only serve to create a cold war in that region. It also allows and excuses Iran's acquisition of nukes so that the US can spread its umbrella of power. Yes, she is out of her mind.
Yes.
My eyebrows went up at this comment too, but your quote doesn't quite accurately display what she said either. The gist of what she said is that our other allies in the region, as well as Israel, should be protected by this umbrella, not that she'd throw down with anyone slighting Israel. The thing that bothered me was her "massive retaliation", why doesn't she just say we'd nuke the shit out of them, cuz that's what she's inferring. It kinda seemed like she just wanted to take a harder line than Obama, but it left me feeling uncomfortable.
Right on.
In looking at just a few pages of the 13,514 comments to ABC news about the debate, I was surprised by the unanimity of those commenting: ABC News has apparently united America in deciding that ABC sucks. The infantile nature of the way this "debate" was conducted may turn out to be one of ABC's more costly miscalculations. One can dream, anyway.
Is it really that many pages? I started to read through but gave up. I'll say that the comments were running about 20 or even 25 in support of Obama against 1 in support of ABC and/or Clinton. Not "a scientific poll" but pretty encouraging that the American public is wide awake now.
over 13,270 posts to abc's website.
watch george try to squirm his way out of last nights slanted performanc
http://abc
Post Comment Edit Cancel
DONT CLICK ON THIS LINK - ABC GETS AD REVENUE IF YOU DO. FIND THE CLIP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
George was bad, but Charlie was worse. I expected more from him but he was so condesending and outrageous that I will never again watch him on the ABC news plue Barbara Walters was praising both of them on the View this morning. She definitely has to go also. She knew better but is still drinking the Kool-Aid, I guess all of them on the View were. I would have though Joy or Whoopi would have said something constructive but hell no. Where is Rosie when we need her?
The ABC Telephone receptionist (212-456-7777) currently sends people to an "Information Line" that chats about switching to HD for a long time that one gives up and gets more angry.
I just spoke to someone in David Westin's office -- the ABC News President and told them people will get even more angry if we can't even register our anger.
I also told her that I am considering canceling my Verizon -- who was the sponsor of the event.
This has been very demoralizing but I hope the pressure on ABC News will continue!
Thanks for telling us what happens once our calls do get through. I've been calling and busy, busy, busy. I think I'll find another number...
Send an e-mail. It's fast and feels great!
Politics of Fear is alive and well.
God forbid that newsmen be denied the opportunity to make a sales pitch to the cynics.
I sense Obama wanted to refuse to answer some of these questions. He even hinted at it during the Bosnia revisit. But the fear of being called arrogant and elitist was definitely present. So like a dutiful servant he tried his best to answer the blood in the water questions.
Sad that the debate will be recalled for the questions asked rather than the answers given.
Yup, it was a miserable indictment of either the state of our country's crumbling intellectual capacity or the the msm's opinion of our country's intellectual capacity.
My "favorite" part was when gibson wanted to get Obama to say he'd lower the capital gains tax. "But if it increased revenues both times it was cut, why would you consider raising it?" I was screaming at the television, wishing Obama would say something like, "Moron, if we use your logic, then the highest revenues would be obtained by cutting it to 10%. Then applying it again, cut it to 5% and get more revenue. Then, using your logic again, boost revenue by dropping it to 0%."
As usual, Obama patiently, logically explained where the problem lies in the inequitable distribution of wealth in this country. But I would have loved to see at least one BRIEF, emotional repudiation of the debate's line of inquiry... take those two dopes to the woodshed..
People with just a slightly open mind and some basic analytical skills can see through most of this crap. I think it's no coincidence that a large majority of highly educated people support Obama. Those who can't see the resentful, intellectual bottom-feeding that this insipid media targets are susceptible to the marginally believable veracity of hillary's fake populist positions.
ABC's questions were all GOP talking points.
"Gotcha", sleaze, "not tax" pledges, and other rightwing bullshit.
ABC News = FoxNews lite
"Instead they spent their time in the empty gutter"
I disagree. The gutter is full to overflowing.
It's not too late to fix these so-called "debates" for the general election (and perhaps for all time to come).
These "moderators" are not moderating the debate, they are DICTATING it!
By directing the candidate's words with their cleverly-devised "questions" (which are truly STATEMENTS), they are DICTATING the policy statements
There is no reason for that.
It's not about the "moderators", we don't need their words or "questions" (STATEMENTS), it's about the candidates
We don't need these "moderators" to steer (and interrupt every 45 seconds or so) the words of candidates for the Presidency of the United States.
Q: Who was it who moderated the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas?
Who "steered" their words?
Who interrupted them every 45 seconds?
Who DICTATED the Lincoln-Douglas debates by way of cleverly-composed STATEMENTS disguised as questions?
A: Nobody did that in those debates.
Those debates were simply the candidates speaking directly to the People, alternately and with ample time (even just 15 uninterrupted minutes at a time, or 10, in alternate turns, would be sufficient).
Who knows why that crap had to happen last night... who knows why the candidates can't just speak, alternately in uninterrupted segments of 10 or 15 minutes...
We might actually find out the policy opinions of the candidates, under a simple format as that... like we did in the case of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
I completely agree. These are no longer debates. They're personal interrogations by schlock-mongers. Whatever happened to presenting an issue, then allowing a certain amount of time for each candidate to discuss it...that'
I never, no matter what the year and who the candidates are, want to see another debate in the currently-existing typical format. Whatever they started out as in the 1970s, modern TV debates have become primarily about the egos and ratings-driven questions of the journalists who are inexplicably appointed as moderators. The questions devolve down to stupidity, the times to speak are too short. The only job a moderator should have is to introduce the debaters by name and then keep track of the elapsed time.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates were TRUE debates: three hours long, statements and rebuttals, no millionaire TV personality trying to trip somebody up into a mangled sentence that can then be run and re-run endlessly.
I request nothing less than a full CONGRESSIONAL investigation of the circumstances of the debate. It was very appalling and demeaning to our national security interest.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
