The Blitzer Blitz -- The Real TV Debate

Wolf Blitzer was the big loser in CNN's recent Democratic debate twixt Clinton & Obama in Hollywood. It was clear that the two candidates decided not to replay their South Carolina squabble or duplicate the cross-talking Romney-McCain slap-back from the previous night's GOP debate. But Blitzer was having no part of civilized talk. No. Throughout the evening, he persistently tried to deliver the brawl, battle, smackdown, and fight he, and CNN, promoted during the run-up to the event. The candidates were having none of it. At one point, an audience member actually called out "Nice try, Wolf' during one of his attempts to pump up things. Hillary echoed the words. But Blitzer wouldn't let go and kept it up. Now, every reporter understands the concept of friction in a news story. Without friction -- who's up, who's down, who's in, who's out, -- without friction it just isn't a 'good story.' Friction makes the world go 'round since the beginning of recorded history. Nation against nation, West versus East, capitalism-Communism, nature-nurture, religion-science, North-South, Sunni-Shia, Red States-Blue States. Friction, as a concept, is embedded in news reporting. But broadcast news, in particular, tends to be binary in language: 0 or 1, yes or no, right or-wrong. Nuance and subtlety is not broadcast news' strongest suit -- which is another way of explaining the Blitzer Blitz to generate a brawl that just wasn't there. It would seem CNN, and others, underestimate their audience. They tend to favor the Jerry Springer approach to friction where folks actually pummel each with words and fists. They don't see friction as a give-and-take of ideas and issues. Clinton and Obama tried to do that. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of daylight between these two candidates' approaches to governing. Their debate agenda was to differentiate their positions without sounding like the Bickersons. CNN's agenda was to do the Bickersons.

The debate newsrooms around the country should be having is how to cover a presidential election without contributing to the fractious and coarsening that's now embedded in our public discourse. Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers, Terry Gross, or any of the other fine broadcast newsies out there get it. They understand there's enough natural friction during an election without the broadcast media juicing it up with its steroidal approach.

Comments

[TotobiAyokoh23]

To me, Wolf Blitzer is Jerry Springer with a white, untrimmed beard. He is so full of himself, speaks in temper-tantrums, and at times, behaves as if he is the epitome of the ultimate truth. Only in America.

[kirotahoe]

not only is wolf blinded by his own reflection, i have a bone to pick with tim russet. when he badgers a guest, is he trying to get the guest's answer or is he just trying to get the guest to say what tim wants him to say. this is a cheap dishonest way to interview. msm ownership needs to be diversified.

[Huck0212]

Even worse than Wolf's debate performance was the next day, after asking Hillary and Obama about the "dream ticket" at the debate, he asked Candy Crowley about the possible "dream ticket." Wolf Blitzer is all about Wolf Blitzer

[Fathoms]

Let's take the Situation Room away from Wolf and give it to a real newsman: Jack Cafferty. He would have known instinctively how to handle the depates appropriately. That's what his many years of real journalistic experience bring to the table. It was a sad day when FN folded and Jack lost his anchor spot. It was the end of a superior era in television news.

[Rockyman]

Let's face it, MSM likes "friction", distortion, deception and censorship. It's all about drama--fiction OR factual--and it's about getting the soundbite everybody plays for the 24hour news-cycle. It sure isn't about imparting the truth--nuance and all. This is the "tabloidization" of our democracy before our eyes!

[bcmeanie]

I think it's a sad statement about our country that someone who calls himself "Wolf Blitzer" isn't immediately laughed off the air. Who's gonna moderate the next debate? Hannah Storm? Willow Bay?

[wesaypopnotsoda]

Hillary is hated on the left and the right. What the left has to understand is that the majority of America is right of center, not left, and that the left has lost the wars before Bill Clinton, and after Bill Clinton. He is hated and despised by the right because he was able to push through liberal causes while he was the president. Not because he is a despicable human being, but because he halted the right-wing agenda in its tracks. Now Hillary herself is still the only Democratic candidate that mainstream America will find acceptable. That includes a coalition of women, African Americans, Latinos, and whites. To prove my point, Fox News had 8 of the top 10 news shows! Eight!!! That statistic goes a long way towards explaining why CNN and MSNBC are shameless in trying to shape the news, instead of reporting the news. A few years ago, a liberal news columnist was questioning Neilsen's apparently inaccurate ratings when Texas Walker Ranger was consistently in the top 10, yet she nor anyone she knew, or anyone they knew, had ever watched that show. It was only after investigating the ratings region by region that she found out the ratings were true. Millions of American were watching Texas Walker Ranger and that it was her world that was small. Wake up liberals and progressives before you blow it again and in January, 2009 you're weeping and wailing, holding a candlelight vigil on the death of democracy

[754]

Wolf has been mailing it in for a long time now. I lost what little respect I had left for Blitzer when he let himself get bitch slapped by Cheney when he asked Dick a question about his politically active pregnant lesbian daughter- after which we witnessed the literal slinking away of a purported news anchor. Christianne Amanpour, one of the last remaining virtues of CNN, would have beatan Cheney's gnards off with a smile on her face.

[bethinCary]

I thought Wolf did a good job-but I also was with the audience on his gotcha questioning of a few questions. I thought the use of the word "naive" when questioning was a rather loaded word-having already been used by HRC when referring to Obama about his decision to talk w/o preconditions to adversarial heads of state-to her detriment. I think the wording of "do you now think your vote for the IWR was WRONG now?"-as opposed to "naive".
Other than that, I thought he did a very good job-and I like Wolf very much.
I do agree with other commenters on here about some major cables being very divisive and part of the problems with out country.This need to frame every oppositional opinion-especially during campaign politics-as one solved in 2 minute soundbites/punch/counterpunch plays to the stupidity of viewers who want to think these arguments are just that simplistic. It also does nothing to bring about any resolution.
The more all of us as citizens, stick together-and not allow the focus of the problems we want to be solved to be wedge-issued to death by the msm-the higher the liklihood we have of solving them.
I'm turning off cable for a while.

[Stirner]

Wolf or Anderson Cooper, what's the difference? To be provoked into a slap-fight, or to be simply ignored by that simpering snot Cooper? The haughty discourtesy Cooper displayed to Huckabee, and even more so to Paul, was unseemly and unacceptable. Is it asking too much to expect at least some commonplace decency be displayed by these self-important talking heads?

[MercedesGabriella]

Since Wolf Blitzer is incapable of hiding his pro-Obama feelings, he is absolutely the wrong person to be in charge of any debate between Sneators Obama and Clinton.

[degjack]

I believe this is symptomatic of lazy journalists who mainly don't have the intellectual heft of Moyers, Rose et. al. and seek the easy way out -- always the bloodfest! They like to blame it on the appetite of the people but in reality, the people CRAVE informative and enlightening journalism that would enable us to make more informed and intelligent choices in our daily lives--not merely about presidential elections. Matters dealing with our schools and jobs and health and city planning and investing and retirement and social institutions and so on and so are NEVER emphasized above the blood & gore. Local news is rife with murder and mayhem and basically nothing else -- it is absolutely useless to the average citizen. Wolf Blitzer just happens to be the biggest whore in the whorehouse.

[DemandTruth]

This is the whole problem! The entire media has condensed the world, and all the world's problems to 60 second sound bytes (bites?)!

The last 2 terms of the Presidency has been run on 60 second sound bytes! It's all about the bumper sticker slogan! (John Edwards called it first - again). "Islamo-fascism" "With us or against us" "Bring em on" "Dead or Alive". "I'm the Decider" "It's hard work" "Cut n run" "The surge is working" etc...
If it can't be boiled down into a 60 second sound byte / talking point / bumper sticker slogan, it's not worth talking about or considering. It's "elitist" or "high brow". Think about it. Every policy this Administration has instituted/enabled has been a 60 second talking point for the deluded, brainwashed, braindead masses.

Clearcutting and destruction of our wild places is the "Healthy Forests Initiative". Rampant and unchecked pollution is "Clear Skies". Illegal and unconstitutional giveaways of taxpayer dollars to religious operations is "Faith-based Initiatives". Opression and repression of women and their sexuality is "Abstinence-only education". Sacrificing a woman's life and wellbeing and right to choose what's done with her own body is "Pro-life" Etc. Etc.

And my favorite of all? "They hate us for our freedoms!" When any reasonable thinking person knows they hate us because we occupy their sovereign countries, meddle in their politics, and steal their resources while killing their people! Duh! But that won't fit on a bumper sticker.

The world and the people in it are more complex than 60 second sound bytes. But as long as the MSM feeds us this pablum, they deaden our logic processors, and they have us right where they want us...

"Mission Accomplished"!

[Ginzaman]

This was not a "debate."
CNN stopped being an actual news network years ago.
When you start working at CNN, part of your orientation is finding out that yes, Wolf Blitzer does have ties to the Mossad.

All that being said, why do people continue to watch? Oh, I keep forgetting. That means massive boycotts, marching in the streets and more. Which most Americans can't be bothered with anymore.

[Desiderata]

I miss John Edwards.

[Dem02020]

Why after a presidential debate, are we talking about a guy named "wolf"?

He's not a candidate for President of the United States, so why should we be discussing him?

Last night during the debate, the audience booed this guy "wolf":

Why?

Why were those People subjected to a situation where someone who isn't even a candidate for the Office, was able to distract their energy and attention that way?

Why was this guy "wolf" interrupting the candidates every 45 seconds (and can we adequately measure someone's qualifications for that Office, when we are limited to hearing only those thoughts of their's, that they can express in 45 seconds)...

Not only that, but "wolf" kept steering the candidates thoughts to wherever he wished, according to some pre-determined scheme of his (or CNN's).

Who is served by that?

Why does that have to happen?


Q: Who was the "moderator" of the debates between Sen. Douglas and former Illinois State Sen. (and future President) Lincoln?

Who constrained them to 45 second opinions, and who interrupted them in their words and thoughts, every 45 seconds?

Who steered the thoughts and words (as "wolf" steered them last night) of Sen. Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln during their debates?


A: Nobody.

Nobody did those things during the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

The two candidates spoke to the People, because it was all about them and no one else...

They spoke in equal and ample uninterrupted portions of time: The first speaking for 30 minutes, the other then for 1 hour, and the first then closed the debate with 30 minutes.

There was no "wolf" or any other hack "moderator" to do the things I have listed here...

Things that caused the audience to boo.


I was just wondering what kind of television-addled generation of Americans we have become, to allow CNN and some hack who works for them, to insert themselves into a presidential debate the way they did last night.

It's not about them, so why should we care...

It's nothing Sen. Douglas or Mr. Lincoln allowed, or would ever allow.

[Xpionage]

Wolf Blitzer was not the big loser in CNN's debate. Yes they are in they starve for a smack down all he networks for different reasons. But Hilary is always being defended. She does not need to be protected from critics with the oversensitive woman"s group. They Hollywood woman"s group who threw a hissy Wolf Blitzer were not needed she has Bill Clinton to protect from that mean stuff. Yes! We are all painfully aware that Blitzer statement was true. She needs to be quiet on Iraq if she plans to carry a lead on Tuesday.
Quite honestly the only thing he did wrong was state what we were all thinking. Not naïve Hilary, but the Bilary Clinton politically centered execution happened. Always standing a safe distance from the "progressives" so she won"t be confused with us Moveon.org "types, but far enough from the right fringe, so she can wag her fingers against the Neo Cons.
Remember George Bush"s takes full accountability for her misjudgment. On October 11, 2002, Clinton voted in favor of the Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq," Despite frantic protesters and angry senators skeptical newspaper writers ranging from moderate dissent to being inflamed about the execution of the misguided invasion. Let us never forget that.
Nice try, but no more Hilary spinning till October!

[myname]

Mr Alderman,

thank you for articulating exactly what I have been saying and writing about Wolf Blitzer's debate hosting. I wrote few days ago on this site for everybody to voice their concern to CNN but my concern did not receieve enough attention. In fact I gave Blitzer the title "The Jerry Springer of presidential debates". I also posted on CNN's blog that they consider using John King instead of Blitzer. They didn't even allow for my comment to appear and censored it. I knew he was a big part of the problem since he was 0 to 2 in the 2 previous debates before this one. In Vegas he couldn't control the rude spectators or the candidates and kept trying to incite fighting. He repeated that in SC and tried yesterday again in LA.
If possible these debates should be hosted by non profit organizations such as PBS or CSPAN otherwise hosts like Blitzer with a bad track record should not be allowed to host these important debates. It is enough that he hosts a tabloid version of political news as 'the situation room' every day. Oh, by the way I get annoyed by their self promotion of calling their program 'the situation room' and calling themselves 'the best political team in television'. I can't imagine even Walter Cronkite calling himself that.