ABC News anchorman Charles Gibson, center, is taking heat for the conduct of the Democratic debate in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia fallout: Was ABC unfair to the Democrats?
The day after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama met onstage in Philadelphia, the chatter is not so much about what the candidates said but how they were treated by debate moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Critics say ABC's anchors were unfair to Clinton and Obama, focusing more on campaign gaffes than actual issues.
Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales today writes: "It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances."
Is Shales right? Or did Gibson and Stephanopoulos ask tough questions that required more than just canned, rehearsed answers? Do the debates need more substance?
Thoughts
Re: How quickly we forget
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by KansasGirlActually, Mitt Romney didn't have to explain his faith. Pundits were speculating about whether it would become a problem, but there was no evidence that it was on the voters minds when he addressed it. He was not facing near the kind of scrutiny that Obama has been under (and with good reason - his pastor wasn't nearly as stupid). Romney's campaign thought he was going to have to fight that battle, so they took a preventive step and tried to take the bite out of the "controversy" beforehand. But it turned out nobody really cared after all, and his presidential nomination imploded in part because they focused on the wrong thing and forgot to talk about issues.
Democratic Debate!
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by pet713I love it! I consider myself a moderate and it is about time they started grilling Obama on his choice of associations and why he has stood by that church for 20 years. Obama really looked uncomfortable answering those questions. Unlike, when he has someone write his speeches for him and he has time to rehearse his speeches, over & over until he gets the tone and emphasis right. I am quite sure he knew some of them were coming. "If you can't stand the heat. Get out of the kitchen!" So to see Obama squirm, some. Surprised me and then I could see the real Obama and I wasn't surprised anymore, just elated! Because he should have been more prepared to answer those tough questions. He surely will be getting a whole lot more of them, in the coming months.
Then his speech the next day. Made it all too apparent just how much his feathers got ruffled. He was acting like a child brushing his shoulder. That was a stupid ploy at reverse psychology trying to pretend he wasn't upset by the debate and the tough questions.
How quickly we forget...
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonMitt Romney had to explain the entire Mormon faith's position on blacks several times for no other apparent reason than the fact that he happened to be a Mormon.
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.
Debate: Waste of time for Voters
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by tie61I agree with you %100 nede. I thought more of Gibson and Stephanopolis before this debate. It was more of an attack on Obama than anything else with trivial Republican tabloid garbage. I would have thought that these two, so-called newsmen, could have asked some newsworthy questions. It was a waste of time as far as I can see.
Grilling?
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by KansasGirlWhere was this so called Republican grilling, Chuck? Which debate? I don't recall any approaching this status of nonsense at all.
And for more on "electability" see: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/200...
Finally, MSM Gives Responsible Coverage and Harding Hitting Qs
Submitted on April 18th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonDid you all watch the same debate I did?
It was joyous to finally see the Democrats get half the grilling the Republicans do.
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.
you're kidding me
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by KansasGirl"The question of electability in the general election is the only one that matters anymore in the race for the Democratic nomination, and ABC’s moderators did a good job because they kept that in mind. "
What? The head-to-head matchups are basically tied between candidates, no matter who the Democrat is. I think the Democratic numbers will surge once we have a nominee, but that's just me. To pretend, however, that the thing that drives people to the polls and fuels their support for candidates is "electability" is ridiculous. November is light years away, anything could happen between now and then, and the polls reflect that. Especially in this election, voters are emotionally and personally involved with their decision. They live lives affected by issues these candidates are talking about. It is a disservice to those voters for the media to try and reduce a prospective presidency to "electability." The fact is, even electability is determined by candidates stances on the issues, responses to questions, and candor and presence in public. That's not going to change because ABC decided to try and trump the National Enquirer!
Debate
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by chief28.retRegardless of whether the moderator questions were trivial or not, the notion that anyone may have learned anything of substance from a debate at this point is ridiculous. We already know where they stand on the issues that "matter" to us, and what's left is a long road ahead of character assassination, spin doctoring, and campaign "adviser" wars.
unabashed moderators
Submitted on April 17th, 2008 by nedeI'm totally disappointed with the poorly moderated recent democratic debate. Charlie Gibson and Stephanopolis displayed their unruly participation in the debate. They both attacked Obama and could hardly allow him time to respond to their tabloid based questions. This is journalism at its worst