Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Pathetic Round of 'Gotcha' Questioning
Let's cut to the chase: I've never seen a worse-moderated presidential debate, a more biased moderator performance, a less intelligent series of questions.
For 45 minutes, the first half of last night's Democratic presidential debate, ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (Bill Clinton's old communications guy) double-teamed Barack Obama. Unrelentingly, they asked a succession of questions about this campaign's not so golden oldies: the beaten-to-death bitter comment, Obama's pastor, Obama's relationship with a neighbor who 40 years ago was a radical activist, even the Illinois senator's penchant for celebrating his patriotism in ways other than parading around in flag-lapel pins.
Someone might just as well have asked: "Senator, are you or were you ever a member of the Communist Party? A sympathizer, perhaps? Because the tenor of the questions at times seemed vaguely reminiscent of the '50s, the early '50s when Joseph McCarthy took his communist witch hunt from the State Department to Hollywood.
To his credit, Obama kept his cool. But he did so at a cost. He at times seemed muted, politely -- perhaps too politely -- understated as he said once, twice, and then three times that the American people were interested in how the next president was going to deal with health care and the housing crises, energy and the Iraq war, not the kind of gotcha issues the moderators kept bringing up. And then Gibson and Stephanopoulos fired back with the next gotcha question.
Sure, Hillary Clinton had to face her own gotcha moment: A Pennsylvanian taped earlier asked her why she said she'd been fired on by snipers in Bosnia when she actually was greeted with flowers. She rambled a bit, sort of went, "ah shucks," and then the moment ended. It was back to Obama.
My scorecard shows Obama got four gotcha questions, Clinton one. Even the camera pans of the audience repeatedly settled on Chelsea Clinton. Surely, someone from Obama's team was in the house?
Finally, when the script turned to actual policy in the second half, the two moderators sounded a lot more like employees of Fox News than of a neutral network. Would the candidates pledge to never raise taxes? Would they really withdraw troops from Iraq if their generals asked for more time? Would they bomb Iran to protect Israel?
John McCain couldn't have asked for a friendlier script.
Granted. Reporters get paid to ask tough questions. No complaint there. But they should be tough questions of substance, not rehashed spam. Surely, if ABC's producers had done some hard reporting, they could have found something fresh -- inconsistencies of policy statements over the campaign's long march, perhaps; contradictions between the candidate's current stands and past votes; or subtle differences between them on issues that really matter to the American public. Relooping an already weary newsreel, trotting out the tired and really terribly limited fudges and guilt-by-association embarrassments of this campaign, make for neither good debates nor good journalism.
For years now, I've grimaced when I see polls showing the persistent downward slope of public trust in the American news media. This Wednesday night, I could hardly blame that public.
Jerry Lanson teaches journalism at Emerson College in Boston. He can be reached at jerry_lanson@emerson.edu.
89 Comments so far
Show AllPoor Obama. Thank God he's got quite a corporate funded war chest to defend him against the big bad corporate media so that 'change' might occur.
It wasn't just what they asked, it's what they didn't ask. For just one example: "you speak of immediate withdrawal from Iraq beginning as soon as you become President. If the war is a 'mistake,' why must you wait until next January to bring it to an end? As a member of Congress you have the 'power of the purse' to stop the war by voting to withhold funding in the immediately-upcoming vote on a supplemental war appropriation. Will you vote to do that?"
Any answer, I would suspect, would be the last word of evasiveness, as they try to carry on their shoulders both their "anti-war" rhetoric and their desire to be "tough" on national security. I counted 45 minutes before they ever began to get off the "gotcha" questions and even then allowed these two unworthy candidates to slither their way without substantive commitments to anything you could believe, "relieved" only by about 20 minutes of commercial messages that contained the only modicum of sense for the whole evening.
Safiyyah - Obama is not just getting money from corporations. He has a record number of contributors. Ordinary people - over a million of them. That is a big number of contributors. And, besides, he is the least evil. And that does matter. Think about how old Ginsburg is on the supreme court. The difference between McSame and Obama on the issue of court appointments alone is enough for me to be among the people who give him money.
At least it makes me feel like I'm doing something. Even pretend change and pretend hope is better than what Clinton and McCain are offering.
Yes, I realize that Obama, The Sun God seems to represent change to so many who worry about the complete solar eclipse we have suffered so long under. That's only for those who think that the Democrats are as different from the Republicans as Night and Day though. We'll still be in See-Saw City.
safiyyah,
Who will you vote for?
And the Obama-bashing continues, except this time, presumably from the "left"....unless safiyyah (and some others who constantly characterize Obama as a corporate-controlled pawn) is a troll.
For the umpteenth time people, we KNOW Obama is not THE answer, nor is he a "Sun God," "cult leader," or....the reason his message is so powerful is because he calls on each and every individual to GET INVOLVED! tell me, oh great, wise and all-knowing safiyyah, what have you done for the community lately?
CS
Moderators George Steponmyface and Charles Gagme played perfectly to the Rove-McCain-Corporate script by playing a "gotcha" game between Clinton and Obama. Although I'll likely vote for Obama, I am not all thrilled about his call to sacrifice US troops to protect Irsrael. That little comment likely cost him votes.
sung425,
Do you think he wears his heart on his sleeve like Kucinich did or did he watch Kucinich and learn? We really don't have alot of choices, do we?
BRING BACK THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS!!! for the youngsters, they used to moderate the presidential campaign debates and they dealt with the issues instead of all the crapola. Their debates were interesting and informative. Let's start a movement!!!
45 minutes for any substantive questions - wow! But once the real questions that matter were asked, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner: she DOES have a better grasp of what is needed to be done and the ability to actually do it; she DOES have the better track record; and Obama IS a cult figure, with his followers stubbornly neglecting any real knowledge of his positions, nor acknowledgement that isn't qualified for the position.
I'm going to choose between Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney. I believe that they should be in a nationally televised debate, but it better be moderated by people who will concentrate on substantive issues.
Jerry, you are right on the money. ABC anchors were pathetic. I sat watching my TV Set in wonder, that ABC would have such incompetents running the show and that is exactly what it was, entertainment to both those "newsmen." I also concur that the shots of the Clinton daughter seemed very scripted, just as in their appearances together, to try to make Hillary get some boost for her daughter's youthfullness. Sorry, it ain't workin'!
The bozos who moderated the debate ??? have been too long, out of touch with the rest of us working stiffs. They don't seem to respect us or to give us much credit for having brains. I am renewing my cable service; I just can't stand the network news anymore. ABC, shame on you!
doggone is right. We need a serious debate, not another one of these silly and worthless media games. Unfortunately, it is probably too late for anything resembling a discussion of issues or the revelation of positions. The Democrats have proven their inability to field a candidate worth a bag of beans. They have not offered us any choices. Their infantile squabbling has given McCain all the fodder he needs to feed the bull. Here's what Jacques Gernet states that the Southern Sung dynasty required of its leaders almost a thousand years ago: energy, capacity for hard work, courage, a sense of discipline, tendency not to abuse authority, a tendency not to make blunders, filial piety and fidelity to friends, conduct inspired by a fundamental integrity rather than by ambition, caring for the well-being of those administered, not open to bribes, efficiency, experience, literary ability. As best I can gather from the so-called debates none of the current candidates seem to posses these qualities. Neither does the media which conducts them.
It is the same ol same ol folks. Nothing changes with our whore,media. They make trite and trivial things important ( for example: the inference that you do not seem to be patriotic since you do not wear a flag,lapel pin)and never mention the really important things. Talk about dereliction of duty!
Just do a simple google of who owns ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX and then ask yourself - Where is this liberal media I keep hearing about?
Perhaps our politicians need to give Gotcha answers. I can envision Obama replying to George's first question, "That's exactly the kind of question I would expect from Bill Clinton's communications director, and it surprises me you didn't recuse yourself from this debate to protect its neutrality."
I don't watch Gibson, ot Georgie, but after
last night, I vow never to tune in ABC
while they are on. Why don't we just
boycott their shows, they're nothing short
of Faux News.
The coporate press has been Hillary Clinton's enabler throughout this whole sorry campaign, so this is really nothing new. What is new about it, and somewhat surprising, is how blatant they've become in this regard. Only days before a primary they've built into such a huge event (that, too, being merely a Clinton talking point uncritically recycled until it becomes "conventional wisdom"), they take to national television, and, in the guise of a "debate," launch an extended, sustained attack on the eventual Democratic presidential candidate, on behalf of the McCain/Clinton campaign.
Yes, it's unfair. So how can Obama get this behind him? How can he address a legitimate concern by rural voters? How can he promote dignity? I'd suggest addressing the concern head on. Set up a series of events in which he goes out of his way to listen to the concerns of rural Pennsylvanians, and other rural people. Call it the Barack Obama Listening Tour, or BOLT. Before Gandhi led the Indian effort at independence he toured the villages of India for a year and listened. Not bad preparation if Obama is serious about uniting Americans or representing all Americans as President.
McCain. Obama. Clinton.
Choose your poison.
They're all FATAL!
Here's another question not asked that would be an "equal opportunity" embarrasser of both these candidates.
"You both say in different ways that your presidency would end the dominance of 'special interests' in our national politics. How do you square that with the fact that both of you have raised millions of dollars in campaign contributions from those same interests? For example, the Wall Street firm Goldman Sachs has contributed close to a half million to both your campaigns. Is Wall Street not a 'special interest?'
If, as I suspect, Obama had tried to weasel out of that one by saying that he hasn't accepted a "dime" from lobbyists, ABC's researchers could surely have read U.S.A. Today's article yesterday about the 38 lawyer
"bundlers" for Obama who were employed by law firms which did lobbying business with the government. They could likewise have researched the huge pharmaceutical company contributions to Clinton which the companies denied were influence-seeking but just looking for a "seat at the table" when issues of drug marketing were raised. My point is: why do they let candidates get by with their evasions when a little "follow up" questioning could help get to the truth of the issues being discussed? If the media figures who question candidates in debates are not OUR representatives, asking the questions we need to ask, in whose interests are their questions being asked? Or is that a rhetorical question?
The 'news' in America is entertainment for the elite and propaganda for the rest. Professional wrestlers and mainstream media whores are in the same game. America is a fraud.
Hao binh
Amen Galen. Once again, for the umpteenth time, we are stuck picking the least of the evils. The frustrating thing is that there were some decent candidates (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel) but the combination of a dumbed down America and lack of corporate financing/media coverage made it all but impossible for any of these to win. Ya know...Canada is lookin better and better each day!
It is interesting to read the reactions of some of the posters here.
One need not be a supporter of Obama (and I'd consider myself only a reluctant one at best) to be dismayed by last night's "debate." What was scandalous (although hardly novel these days) was not the obvious bias against Obama during the first 50 minutes, but the insipidness of the questions themselves.
That Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos (in his role as the returning prodigal son/water-carrier for the Clinton campaign) thought that these "questions" merited serious consideration would be laughable were it not so lamentable.
What the "debate" showed was not that Obama can't take the heat, but that the brains and imaginations of Gibson, Stephanopoulos and Clinton are all overheated. It showed that the mainstream media really is quite cynical and disdainful towards that mythical beast called the "average American voter" who, we are meant to believe, really cares deeply about who Obama shares a boardroom with once a quarter.
They don't. But that's no surprise at all, since that's why we have folks like Gibson and Stephanopoulos. Americans have to be made to care about these "issues," so the media employ folks like Charlie and George to manufacture both the desire/interest and the product itself.
How else can a system like ours do its work if not by getting us to care about who wears a flag pin rather than the number of people coming home draped in flags or the countless numbers being slaughtered on its behalf?
The high point was Stephanopolis FORCING Hillary to admit with "Yes, Yes, Yes" that Barack is indeed electable, and making a point of not allowing her to dodge that yes/no question---which she otherwise intended to do so that her campaign could keep dwelling on that racist-themed rumor of unelectability..
The low point was Gibson and Stephanopolis trying to put both candidates in a box with demands for promises about no tax increases for people earning SPECIFIC brackets of income. Tax law is made by Congress, not the president except as influenced by the veto pen, and they both should have responded that they would let Congress handle it
IF you were as disgusted with the content of this "debate" as I was, please go on the ABC website and let them know what you think. Hopefully with a few million nastygrams from us, they might get the message that we as voters would like a bit more substance.
I skipped it. Washington is a sewer where politicians are bought by those with money. Change must first take place within yourselves, then your communities. The corruption and power of Washington has grown beyond your control. Change what you can and brace for the rest. Puleeeese do not dwell on the negative but instead neutralize it and bring it into balance with your mind and actions locally.
This was a prime example of what the corporate media is in this country. Nothing but focus on issues that do not matter and the tendancy to "frame" the debate in a way that limits any productive debate. News organizations should not hold or sponsor debates. It is disgusting and insulting.
Anyone notice last night when Obama said that George H.W. Bush had a smart foreign policy in the early 90's?
I usually never watch commercial television. I thought this might be worth watching. I'm back to not watching commercial tv. What a joke!
Why are "we" wasting our time even discussing this, when the facts and math are clear: HRC cannot win the nom. End of line.
Unless, of course, "we" want to lose, which is looking more and more like a fact everyday.
"In the latest Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll, the Arizona senator is ahead of Obama 47% to 43%. Matched up with Clinton, McCain leads her 49% to 41%."
And he's running on a campaign of "More Cheney/Bush, but with a slightly different flavor of insanity."
The fact that more illegal wars, more money for the rich, more hell for We The People is ahead in the polls proves neither Dem candidate is qualified for the position.
Question: if Nader was a "spoiler" in 00, which he was not, then what does that make Hillary? Super-duper spoiler who might, in fact, be a Rove plant meant to hand McCrazy the dictatorship?
Today's mainstream media is nothing more than the realization of Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth".
Reporters get paid to ask tough questions.
Huh? I've never seen any curveballs thrown at the Bush Administration.
Hey folks,
Stephen Colbert is apparently having HRC on the show tonight, and there's a forum here for people to post a suggestion for what Stephen should ask her.
Who knows whether anyone at the show reads the darn thing, but thus far there have only been 13 replies.
Here's mine:
I'm not sure what he should ask her, but here's how I would lead off the show:
"Nation, I don't know about you, but after listening to last night's debate I can say along with Iggy Pop that 'of course I've had it in the ear before!'"
That would be a nice way to kick-off the evening.
If you thought the ABC debate was bad, image what the Faux debate would have been like.
"45 minutes for any substantive questions - wow! But once the real questions that matter were asked, Hillary Clinton was the clear winner: she DOES have a better grasp .."
That is a load of crap. The first half was battering Obama and then an acknowledgement that they hadn't given Clinton as much speaking opportunity, so we were treated to her droning on exclusively on the issues.
If you couldn't see that clearly than your perspective is warped.
abc is owned by GE and GE is owned by the rich robber barons who tricks and brainwashes to make WE the people their slaves..... this is what our wise founders fought against all the wealth and power with the few the kings of england....
lets WE the people come together against these people that has destroyed our wise and brave founders country and back to what the founders fought and died for....
how do we come together and fight.. first find people that are TRULY trust worthy and follow who they say to elect... one of these is THE BOSS bruce springsteen and the other is jimmy carter.. when BOTH these people edorses a candidate we the people should follow in mass .... the BOSS and carter both support obama... so its OBAMA is the one we should support also..
someone should make a list of all the companies that GE owns and boycott everyone of them... ALWAYS !! cause we now know THEY are proven enemies of WE the people!! and if we do this then the other robber baron owners will start to do better...
WE THE PEOPLE!!!!!
Awful... simply awful.
1) Is ABC really so broke that they can't afford to broadcast an important public service without commercials? Stunning. Bring back PBS and League of Women Voters.
2) I had hoped that ABC, OWNED BY DISNEY, an "entertainment" company, theoretically not hooked in to the war economy... would do a better job. Very disappointing.
3) Despicable use of conservative frames. Embarrasing to see two employees of an American Corporation demanding "pledges" from U.S. Senators. Their arrogance will be their downfall.
4) Gibson closed with a remark that "neither candidate can win on pledged delegates, so what would you say the supers..."
WRONG! Do the math Charlie! Obama has it sewn up unless HRC can stage a massive coup among the supers. Less likely today after her rambling, no-eye-contact, responses last night.
5) Kudos to Obama for talking about "manufactured" issues. He should have pushed back harder on the "moderators".
6) George: I'm only taping the last ten minutes of your show from now on. (The In Memoriam and the Sunday Funnies).
7) Charlie: when did a $200,000 income (3.4% of the population) become "middle class"? Retire in disgrace to your country estate... NOW!
How about this ?
We'll boycott George Stephanoupoulos'(sp) Sunday morning show to show our disapproval of his 'gotcha' performance against Obama! No more THIS WEEK at 9:00 A.M. for the duration of this campaign - let his ratings s-l-i-d-e and that will be our gotcha! performance!
I allready boycott all of those shows, don't all of you?? I watched the debate last night - it was the first time I had watched anything on network news. How about a Democracy Now! moderated national debate?? That would be something!
How many of them has flags pins on them ?
Ya know what? I think we should have a forum where registered voters ask the candidates questions like, "If Congress hands you a bill to sign which allows cuts to the military and an increase in domestic programs, would you sign it or veto it?"
This media crap is buffoonery at its finest. Wag the Dog 2 is now in full throttle.
devil1,
Are we supposed to infer from your comments that you're writing from a country other than the USA? If so, would you please tell us? And also tell us WHY you think McCain is a good choice?
RE: Bittergate
Is anyone not amused although also perturbed at the sght of ALL of these rich-filth (yes- that includes Sen. Obama) elites deigning to understand middle and lower (economic) class america? TRULY disgusting the whole lot of them.
Sen. Obama does come out the best because I do believe that he meant to say that the people have become "embittered" by the brutal neo-human "government" and the reality it has created, rather than being a "bitter" people.
There is a world of difference between the two semantically, and "words do matter", ya know!
Do they still have Good Morning America on tv? I remember they would take the camera out on the street where a mob of Americans would be gathered to get in the video with the weather guy and Katie and Matt. They would be holding happy birthday signs and little flags. Some would be wearing rubber moose antlers. All would be screaming and clapping like idiots at a pizza party. Americans. You don't meet too many of them here inside the fort, but out there in the woods for miles in all directions there are millions and millions of them.
The dark wisdom that will salve my grief when the next team of brain dead leaders climb into the driver's seat is the thought of perfect justice. The presidency of George Bush was not a mistake or an act of thievery or a stroke of bad luck. He was simply the appropriate president for all those folks down on Times Square, the only imaginable brain for the American beast. We get the presidents and the debate moderators we deserve.
The happy part will come next year when Doom n Gloom and poet and KEM and coco and Siouxrose and Coyotita and Galen and myself are finally forced to move to France to find health care. After a couple of years the toxic food additives will be flushed away by good wine, and the silliness of our futile politics will evaporate from our minds.
Clinton or Obama could have picked up a lot of votes if they were to say "After I'm elected, I will
petition the FCC to cancel your licence". If you want to see a real debate, have Nader ask questions
for 2 hours. This country is sliding into Fascism with the blessings of the "Media".
Email ABC, let them know how disgusted you are. Tell everyone you know what a travesty it was. Revolt! We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!
Some of the official spinmeisters on the networks have gone into overdrive to defend the debate, claiming that it was a legitimate look at "character." Of course it isn't surprising that they are saying this because it is the kind of thing they've been trading in it for so long.
I just heard someone over at MSNBC claim that this line of questioning is totally legitimate because: A) People on the campaign trail (i.e. the media creation called the "average American") ask these very questions; and B) Because these are the sorts of questions Obama will get from Republicans should he win the nomination.
I'd love to see some hard data on how many "average Americans" out there really approach any of the candidates and ask them this sort of nonsense---"Senator Obama, can you tell me why you are on the board of a charity with Bill Ayers?"
You won't get hard data from the media however, because they ran out of that particular commodity a long time ago. I think hard data was severely rationed during WWII and the world market simply never bounced back from the global shortages of the post-war years.
Anyway, this is the favorite line of defense of the major media outlets, done to cover for the immense disdain they have for their viewers and for their economically-driven need to boost their ratings by manufacturing "issues" and remaking themselves as a form of info-tainment in order to compete within an entertainment saturated media landscape.
The major media (and politicians or political wannabes) will tell you endlessly that the first half of the "debate" was a revealing investigation of character, but don't buy it. There are plenty of ways one could probe the character of the candidates AND still address substantive issues, but this wasn't one of those times.
I thought Barack Obama handled the flag pin fairly well last night except I would have used the following analogy instead:
Our country is like a house on fire. I mean it's nearly fully engulfed. There are so many problems! Then along comes an honest, brave, well-meaning man fully up to the challenge of putting out this disastrous fire arrives. He's got the fire hose hooked up to the hydrant. But the owners of the house are standing by and yell out "Hey, wait a minute, you're not wearing your flag pin! We want to know if you're for real!" Huh? At this critical moment Americans are supposedly fixated on a flag pin? A mere symbol of a symbol? And don't forget, George Bush and Co. and MSM have been wearing their flag pins at the same time they've been pouring gasoline on the fire!
I just googled "owner CBS and found out that
all 4 major networks are owned by major corporations. Disney owns ABC, as well as ESPN. NBC is owned by GE, CBS is owned by Viacom. We all know who owns Faux Noise. The
only TV outlets that I have found that do
a creditable job are FSTV and LINK TV. Unfortunatly they both are available only if
you happen to have Dish Network satellite TV
ABC is just another FAUX News. I will never watch their Charlie show again.
I still do not understand why all these candidates parrot GWB and
Cheney's lines about Iran attacking Israel. Iran has not attacked any other country in over 700 years. Why do they think they are stupid enough to do it now? If any country would attack another country look to the USA or Israel to do it for no reason. The NIE said that Iran had ceased their weapons program in 2003. Iran is complying with the Non Proliferation treaty in making power from nuclear. It is legimate. Why is the US the arbiter of what is right for all countries in the world? We are the world's worst terrorist nation. We have no right to tell other countries what to do.
George and Charlie were a disgrace. There should be NO moderators. There should be only a time-keeper so that each candidate would get equal time.
The dumbest question I ever heard was why Obama was not wearing a flag pin---just goes to prove that the media has been dumbed down by those in the media.
It was refreshing to see a flag-less lapel on a politician but my heart belongs to Nader.