Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Same Old White Guys Run the Debates
A presidential campaign in which a prevailing theme is "change" makes it all the easier to see just how much things remain the same.
Take the presidential debates to be broadcast this fall. The Commission on Presidential Debates plans three events, as usual, with one a "town hall" format featuring questions from voters, a recent custom on its way to becoming routine.
Another tradition is firmly upheld as well: Three white men will be in charge of questioning Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama on behalf of millions of American voters who, as a group, are less white and male than ever before. Gwen Ifill, an African-American who is moderator and managing editor of PBS' "Washington Week," drew the number two spot. She will moderate the vice-presidential debate, as she did in 2004.
I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?
Including the vice presidential moderator, "We chose four people who we thought were qualified," says Janet Brown, the commission's executive director. "That doesn't mean others are not."
Brown said the panel's research into voter preferences led it to conclude that a single moderator, rather than a panel of questioners, makes the best format. There also is a preference for moderators with live television experience. As for the vice presidential debate being assigned to the sole female and person of color, Brown said the commission does not consider the job to be a lesser assignment. "Gwen is not seen as being any less important a moderator or having less important an assignment than any other moderator."
Using the commission's criteria, it's pretty darned simple to come up with the names of television correspondents who are experienced in the issues and have the requisite live coverage credentials. Katie Couric, the CBS News anchor, is one. Christiane Amanpour, the CNN correspondent who has reported live from dangerous conflict zones for two decades, is another. Andrea Mitchell of NBC also would fit the profile.
Brown said the panel avoids naming network anchors as moderators because "they are such celebrities." It's awfully hard to see how Couric could be considered more famous than Brokaw, who, with his best-selling books and other projects, sometimes seems like a one-man industry. But never mind. The point is that the commission looked around and what did it see? The same old picture.
Since the commission began running debates in 1988, only one female correspondent, Carole Simpson of ABC, has moderated a presidential forum. That was in 1992 and the format was a "town hall" meeting in which Simpson's role was to facilitate questions from the audience, not ask them herself. Before his retirement, CNN's Bernie Shaw moderated both a presidential and a vice presidential debate. Simpson, Shaw and Ifill are the only African-Americans who've had such high profile roles.
"Truth be told, even I would say there are not a lot of women on the level of the Brokaws and the Schieffers," says Carol Jenkins, president of the Women's Media Center. "It's the networks that are so thin on women and people of color." The center is petitioning the debate commission to add more representative moderators to this year's lineup, not to eliminate a moderator who already has been announced. But Brown said that's not likely because of the single-moderator format.
Would more women, African-Americans, Hispanics or those of other ethnic backgrounds ask the presidential contenders dramatically different questions? Perhaps not. Once a campaign settles into the stretch, the issues that are dominating public discussion inevitably dominate the debates. Just once, though, I'd like to see the candidates pressed on how changes they propose to Social Security would affect women -- the group most dependent on the program and most vulnerable to changes in it. I'd like not just to hear about our future military posture in Iraq, but about America's responsibility to the millions of refugees the war has created.
There is value in pursuing the same issues from a different perspective. But it seems that this year we are destined again to see them through the same lens.
--Marie Cocco
Copyright 2008, Washington Post Writers Group



74 Comments so far
Show AllThe three I'd like to see asking questions
Helen Thomas
Chris Rock
Stephen Colbert
How about: Judy Woodruff of The News Hour or Charlene Hunter-Gault or Monica Kaufman Pearson (Atlanta), Barbara Walters or Gloria Borger? Anyone from C-SPAN would be excellent. There are lots of women with excellent credentials. The issue isn't the credentials, but the questions asked and the topics covered and where the focus of the debates lies. As opposed to the mess with Charlie and George during the primary season. The Commissions need to rethink the moderators and go for quality, not reputation, name recognition; afterall, this is about the American people and what we want and need, not the media's desire for ratings and more money.
The questioners this year will be:
1. John Tesh
2. John Mayer
3. Avril Lavigne
Expect the questions to be probing and substantive. For example: "Senator McCain, have your pubic hairs turned gray? Senator Obama, do you eat barbeque and watermelon?
In order to keep the agenda within accepted limits, you have to have 'old, white, guys asking the questions. They are the ones who hold dear to the company line and would never think of asking a question that could embarrass or expose their bosses. They may say they are their own bosses but they know better who signs their paychecks.
Hoa binh
from the article:
"Once a campaign settles into the stretch, the issues that are dominating public discussion inevitably dominate the debates."
strongly disagree. my experience has been that the "debates" set the limits of acceptable public discourse.
so who's going to ask the UFO question?
"...and how many times a day do you, Mr. Candidate, go down on all fours and "Praise Jesus" for making a America a (genocidal) Xrstian (white man's) country?"
I WUV amewican dewates. They so smart....we can wuship our future Overseer of choice (the only choice allowed), through a tube....
1.Sarah Bernhart
2. Margaret Cho
3. Jane Lynch
4. Whoopie Goldberg
Naomi Klein
Amy Goodman
1. Cynthia McKinney.
2. Ralph Nader
Nail 'em!
The way Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates is NOT as a candidate, but as the moderator. That's the kind of thing he used to do, way back when, when he was effective.
You're blaming Ralph Nader for the cowardice of liberals. That's ugly.
He's there fighting for justice and truth, standing up to the corporate monster that owns the government, the media, and is hell-bent on either owning or destroying the entire planet
We're there, selling-out to fear and lesser-evilism
and you rip on him
"I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation." But how about a dose of reality? Race and sex already have become flashpoints in this campaign. McCain's age is an issue and Obama is sparking enormous enthusiasm among younger voters. So why are we stuck in a media rut with three white men, the youngest of whom, Brokaw, is 68?"
So it would be okay to have black women moderators, as long as everyone involved was a member of the coordinator class?
Make that same old CORPORATE white guys. Until the US electorate identifies corporate power as the root of the demise of the US, the demise will not slow down, let alone turn around.
I'd love to see Cynthia McKinney grilling McCain and Obama, like she did with Donald Rumsfeld. Then we'd finally get some meaningful questions asked at a debate. Ralph Nader should also be there to provide some meaningful answers.
Oh, how I wish....
Daniel David August 19th, 2008 1:23 pm: "Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates"
I agree. I would like to see him in the debates as well, DD. If Nader is not effective, then the corporate party has nothing to worry about.
re 1:23pm
it's easy to see why the corporate candidates and their tireless cheerleaders would rather not have to face nader (or mckinney) in an open-format debate.
another typical DPA cheap shot, long on bile and short on substance.
hazmat,
Right. We can't possibly judge what issues actually matter to people in the current political climate. The MSM blaring at 220 million isolated individuals in their living rooms does not result in a system where people are even aware of their *own* wants and needs. Shut down the corporate media, limit politicians to 10 words a day, and create community discussion/debate groups; then maybe in a few years you'll start to get to a situation where national debate is guided by people's own critical thinking about what they'd like to see done. In the present climate no one even brings up anything that hasn't already been brought up by elected party members or talking heads--the handful of elites have near complete agenda-setting powers.
Precisely why the White Inside The Beltway crowd is losing the progressive vote. The black candidate who is the beneficiary of diversity programs, is now adjudicating over the dismantling of diversity issues by participating in the status quo ordering of events. No matter how the spin masters weave their latest dogma of salvation, this is just another nail in the coffin of Obama who thrust himself onto the National Stage by SELLING HIMSELF that as a NEW politico doing things differently. Turns out, after all the noble platitudes, his policy positions, shifting center/right doctrine, and cozyness with the corporate media elites demonstrates that we are getting - and will likely get under Obama -is MORE OF THE SAME!
btw that was actually aimed at hazmat August 19th, 2008 12:52 pm, not hazmat August 19th, 2008 1:40 pm.
"The Commission on Presidential Debates plans three events, as usual..." As usual indeed. This "Commission" is a one Corporate Party self-serving organization dedicated to making certain that non-Democrats and non-Republicans CANNOT participate.
_
As for "The way Ralph Nader ought to be in the debates is NOT as a candidate, but as the moderator. That's the kind of thing he used to do, way back when, when he was effective." Yeah. Yeah. You know better than Nader what Nader should do. I'll tell you this. Nader would NOT have pandered to evangelical crowd saying that he doesn't walk alone, or that he is saved, or Jesus is part of his marriage. Nader belongs in the debates to challenge the crap that comes out of both Obama's and McCain's mouths. What Democrats fear most IS a debate with Nader in it. If their candidate were so friggin' superior why would they fear that. C'mon Obama. Debate Nader. We dare you! And we dare you to do it in a town meeting setting without teleprompters. Let's see how you fare against "non-effective" Ralph Nader. Chicken? We know you are.
I don't watch debates. I refuse to support the MSM. I won't buy newspapers either. If they say anything important I'll read about it the next day or hear it on "DEMOCRACY NOW"
Yeah, I don't watch the euphemistically-named "debates" either; I don't have a big enough shovel, or an efficient enough gas mask, to sit behind loose-boweled elephants and asses for all that time.
I'm all for equal-opportunity infotainwhoring in principle, though.
What debates ?
Corporate right vs. corporate middle-right discussing the best ways to keep the people asleep and or afraid, what propaganda will work best on them for the next 4 years.
No Thanks
The reason that Nader is NOT in the debates, and will NEVER be in the debates, is that he would likely get between 23-30% of the National vote. As a HIStoric reminder, the last time a Third Party candidate got in - Ross Perot - Perot got 18% of the National vote. It is also the last time THe League of Women voters RAN the debates. The white partisan elites then took over the platform pushing out the independent branch of the League of Women voters insuring that male-whitey-patriarchal-non-diverse- voices of enfranchised elites stole the show and will continue to steal the show. ThE more things change the more they stay the same.
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
Applause
The more things change the more they smell the same.
Sorry, it cannot be said often enough to get the stink out of my nose..
The article fails to mention that the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is actually a creature of the Republican and Democratic parties. Go to their website (http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html) and you'll find that the commission's co-chairs are former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties.
It's not the "white guys" I object to, it's the legitimacy that's given to this organization that represents the 2-party duopoly and the corporate/ruling class masters that both parties represent.
If there were genuine free and open political discussion in this country, we'd have debates sponsored by an independent organization that would invite ALL presidential candidates.
The way it is now, virtually every important topic -- the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us, our imperialist foreign policy, our outrageous military spending, our out-of-control presidency, single payer health care -- is "off the table" because the 2 main parties basically agree. Without the participation of candidates who hold truly different points of view, like Nader, McKinney, or Ron Paul, the debates are just a dog and pony show for the candidates the ruling class has pre-selected.
Naomi Klein and Amy Goodman (from Little Brother)
Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney (from others)
That would do.
By the way, someone mentioned Judy Woodruff. She is a bigger Republican pro-corporate hack than any of the three fossils that are slated for the job.
The debates are meaningless without the participation of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney in them; I hope - and will participate in - for large huge turnout protests at all three debates. It wouldn't matter one bit what the format was if the two substantive candidates were full participants (and their vice presidential counterparts) in each of the debates. (I only do not include Barr because I don't know if he is on enough ballots to get electoral college votes necessary; I'd include him if he were).
Why Are we legitimating these Fake Corporate Elections? Why are we not on another website explaining how fake they are. Here everyone already knows, except those who are pretending, so they don't have to do more work.
What elections ?
Oh ! You mean the selection process to see who will be the new figurehead of the United Corporation of America ?
I just vote for Nader, and think fondly of a time when the government was ours, before we let the corporations take it from us and kill, maim, enslave, poison, starve, torture most of the people on the planet.
Until we get the nerve to make use of our 2nd amendment rights and take back our country, voting for Nader will have to do.
The two stooges, the three stooges, everywhere a stooge---and thanks for nothing to the author who did not mention the other presidential candidates, whom nobody but the MEDIA freaks have decided we shall not hear in a free and open discussion. Remember non-inquisitive clowns, the high and mighty pastor already asked the big American question: "Does evil exist?" Of course it does, Satan has a factory for example where he produces fake fossils in order to confuse good people (Lewis Black)---and it's America's mission to track it down and make everything perfect forever. Sleep tight! NADER NADER NADER. I will not watch or vote for prostitutes.
Lehrer, Shieffer, and Brokaw: Three bees in a barrel to buzzzzz everyone to sleep. That is the whole point--the American electorate as the somnolent undead. Most people won't even bother to watch these useless old drones, or the useless candidates.
Daniel FUCKING David is scared of Nader and wishes he was a "moderator" ! Nice try but Nader's getting stronger as Obama keeps BURNING his base out and keeps rolling over to the rightwing like a DUMB DOG ! If Nader, Mckinney, Paul, etc ... had a chance at the presidential debates, they'd SMASH Obama's and Mccain's ASSES and have an even greater chance of causing a major change in the votes come November. They might get a chance yet even if they're kept off the debates. Too bad more disaffected and disgruntled base voters aren't going to vote for Obama and even the moderates will swing to Mccain for Obama's BETRAYAL of his base. CHOKE ON THAT !
Lots of great suggestions for interviewers here.
How big are the blinders that MSM wears when thinking about who has the stature to comment on important issues? Since intelligence has no racial or sexual component (right?) and young people can think too, one suspects unexamined assumptions are skewing the selection process. When older white men are chosen over and over again, the message to young Black women, for example, is that they are not qualified to serve in such a capacity.
To figure out the probability of three older white men being chosen for any panel, you have to first find the chance of one older white man being chosen out of our diverse population. Then you raise that to the power of three. The probability is less than half of one percent.
Math is below.
US Populaton Category and percent
white 67.00%
male 50.00%
old 50.00% (Rough estimate)
Chance of choosing one older white male -------16.75%
Chance of Choosing Three older white males----- 0.47%
I do this mentally every time I see some tall white men, usually rich too, striding self importantly together in their well cut suits on their way to a meeting that will decide our fates. (Don't get me wrong. I love white people, older people and men. But they have to be educated to share the podium and the power.)
Dumb old Great Grandpa McCain's quote:
"In the 21st Century, nations don't invade other nations."
haha
So what does he think the U.S. did to Iraq??
Great Grandpa McCain also blames Obama for the high gas prices.
McCain: Different puppet, same puppet master (Karl Rove).
Live TV experience - Check
Non Male - Check
Minority - Check
Smart - Check
In touch with Reality - Check
Why wasn't Rachel Maddow asked to host one of these debates. I bet it would have been the most watched and the most enlightening.
Any comments on these "debates" is not worth the strokes on this keyboard. They're an insult to any intelligent voter...a media farce to satiate the ill/uninformed.
Gwen Ifill is as big a clown as the rest of them. When the League of Women Voters re-assumes control of the debates again, I'll take them seriously again.
Boy I'm glad the writer isn't suggesting we bring racism or sexism into this.
ruscle August 19th, 2008 4:34 pm
I'll make an exception for Maddow, she is reasonable and thoughtful.
Can the debates get any more boring than they already are? No one asks any meaningful questions. I'm sick and tired of hearing about the candidates "faith" for one thing. Are they politicians or are they prospective ministers of churches?
The mainstream media whores are bought and paid for. They're paid to not make waves. God forbid they might ask pertinent questions that people could learn something from and make it interesting.
Naomi Klein
Ray McGovern
Bruce Fein (constitutional conservative who took a stand against Bush's shredding of the constitution)
Never mind!
Helen Thomas
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
A reporter, and 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' congressmen who aren't afraid to ask tough questions of their own party as well as the opposition party.
I don't care so much that they're old and white, I care whether they'll ask TOUGH questions, and not give up until they have an answer.
The so-called debates don't matter. Everyone knows McCain is a shoo-in. The poll analysts have already declared him the winner.
My guess is that heads of the Commission on Presidential Debates are 3 old white dudes. >:-)
Here's what the CoPD says is their leadership, I notice that at least 2 are dead:
Co-Chairmen
Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
Honorary Co-Chairmen
Gerald R. Fordâ€
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reaganâ€
William J. Clinton
Board of Directors
Howard Buffett
John C. Danforth
Antonia Hernandez
Michael D. McCurry
Newton N. Minow
Dorothy Ridings
Alan K. Simpson
H. Patrick Swygert
Executive Director
Janet H. Brown
How about Roseann Barr
"I have nothing against Jim Lehrer, executive editor of "The NewsHour" on PBS, or Tom Brokaw of NBC, or Bob Schieffer, the host of CBS' "Face the Nation."
Really Ms Cocco? I do, as in they all suck, with Lehrer sucking possibly the least.
Let me add to the growing wish-list of moderators:
Gore Vidal
Howard Zinn
Chalmers Johnson
Ishmael Reed
Keith Olbermann
Olbermann of course being the only credible choice, as no one would allow the others a chance to ask questions.
ruscle - Maddow is on her way to becoming a National Treasure in the Helen Thomas mold.
I agree with all above who believe Nader should be in the debates, because it will only help Obama put McCain away.
But I would like to know what you believe should be the guidelines for someone participating. Nader is getting about 2-4% nationally right now.