October, 16 2008, 10:26am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-6273
Debate Watchers Score Schieffer Best Moderator, Still Want More Challenges to Candidate Spin
WASHINGTON
In the partisan minefield of the closing days of the 2008 campaign,
supporters of both Barack Obama and John McCain gave CBS News anchor
Bob Schieffer a thumbs-up for his moderation of the third and final
presidential debate at Hofstra University on Long Island.
Yet large numbers of those from both sides of the political aisle
felt the moderator could have done more to challenge the candidates'
spin with tougher follow-up questions. The results come from a survey
conducted by Free Press, the national, nonpartisan media reform group,
and devised by Andrew Tyndall, publisher of Tyndall Report.
"Usually, these debates are perceived through such partisan eyes
that no clear consensus emerges," Tyndall observed. "Yet both sides
agreed that Bob Schieffer comes out as the winner of this fall's series
of debates -- and Tom Brokaw is bringing up the rear."
Schieffer Tops Brokaw
Schieffer's questions were graded as "extremely serious and
relevant" by majorities of both groups of supporters from the more than
2,700 volunteers who participated in the Citizens' Media Scorecard,
including 62% of McCain's supporters and 72% of Obama's.
The volunteer panel was asked to pick their favorite moderator and
debate format. A virtually identical majority of both candidates'
supporters picked Schieffer as the best (62% of McCain's; 63% of
Obama's) and almost nobody ranked NBC's Brokaw No. 1 (8% and 6%,
respectively). Jim Lehrer of PBS was ranked better than Brokaw, worse
than Schieffer.
The debate that divided the panel on partisan lines was the
vice-presidential meeting between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin and
moderated by PBS's Gwen Ifill: Only 30% of McCain's supporters rated
Schieffer's debate as superior to Ifill's, whereas 74% of Obama's
supporters preferred Schieffer's.
More Public, Less Spin
Despite their general praise of Schieffer, the debate raters agreed
that he didn't do enough to challenge the candidates' factual
misstatements or spin with tough follow-up questions (64% of McCain's
supporters; 58% of Obama's).
This concern has been consistent in prior debates, with many
reporting that the debate format limited the public's ability to get
engaged in the discussion, while not allowing enough leeway for a
departure from scripted answers.
"I'm not really sure that it is necessary to have an audience at
all, since they weren't allowed to talk and had to remain neutral,"
complained one of the debate watchers. "Why have people there at all?
We only see them as the candidates walk in."
"I would like for the audience to be able to respond by clapping
when they agree with the candidate's position," responded another. "It
makes debates much more lively."
"Questions should be drawn from a pool that are submitted and voted
upon by citizens either online or by other means," another viewer
wrote. "This would achieve a closer approximation to what people really
want to know without filtering."
Several other panelists called for instant fact-checking of answers,
so candidates could not take advantage of the format to spin issues and
avoid real answers. "We should have fact-checkers going during the
debate so we know when one candidate is lying," suggested one rater.
"The average American does not have the time to fact check everything
the senators say."
Why Schieffer?
There may have been clear consensus that Schieffer outperformed the
other moderators, but there was no such agreement between the two
groups about why Schieffer did so well.
Overall, Obama supporters tended to be much more complimentary than
McCain's. More Obama supporters on the panel rated Schieffer's
performance as excellent (57% vs. 33%). They felt he did enough to
fact-check and challenge spin (41% vs. 31%), avoided bias (88% vs.
63%), and was extremely plainspoken (68% vs. 38%), intelligent (58% vs.
28%), and probing (40% vs. 17%).
"McCain supporters preferred Schieffer because he was better than
the other moderators," Tyndall said. "Obama supporters approved of him
because they thought he did an excellent job."
On the Issues
As for Schieffer's selection of topics, majorities of both groups
voted him "just right" on his attention to the social issues of health
care (81%), education (78%), abortion (74%) and energy (72%). Among the
economic topics, he received majority approval from both groups on
federal spending (67%), taxes (65%), housing (59%) and jobs (56%).
McCain supporters were more likely than Obama's to complain about
Schieffer's spending too much time on health care (20% vs.4%) and too
little time on counterterrorism (74% vs. 45%). Obama's supporters
complained about too much time on taxation (26% vs. 11%) -- and too
little time on poverty (83% vs. 43%), Social Security (80% vs. 66%) and
the environment (62% vs. 38%).
Although Free Press extended outreach to all parts of the political
spectrum, Obama supporters considerably outnumbered McCain's, as they
have in our three previous panels. To correct for that imbalance, we
followed our standard practice of contrasting the ratings of the two
groups rather than combining them. Consisting of volunteers rather than
a random sample, these results cannot be projected to the population at
large.
Republicans are from Fox, Democrats from MSNBC
Nowhere was the divide between the two groups of supporters as stark
as in where they chose to watch the debate. Consistently across all
four debates this fall, partisans of McCain/Palin have overwhelmingly
watched the debate on Fox News Channel (49% on Wednesday night).
The top three channels for Obama/Biden backers have been MSNBC
(26%), PBS (20%) and CNN (20%). One thing that both groups of partisans
managed to agree on in this final debate was that -- almost unanimously
-- their candidate won. Each saw the Schieffer debate as an even more
resounding success than the resounding success of previous contests.
For McCain's backers. 91% saw him as the winner (up from 82% for the
town hall, 80% for foreign policy debate). For Obama's backers, those
numbers were 94%, 92% and 89%, respectively.
Andrew Tyndall and Free Press experts are available to comment on
these results. To schedule an appearance, contact Jen Howard at (202)
265-1490 x22 or press@freepress.net.
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Columbia Students File Civil Rights Complaint After Arrests, National Guard Threat
"The violent repression we're facing as peaceful anti-war protesters is appalling."
Apr 25, 2024
A day after Columbia University officials warned it may call on the National Guard to remove nonviolent student protesters who have been occupying campus lawns since last week in solidarity with Gaza, advocacy group Palestine Legal on Thursday filed a federal civil rights complaint demanding an investigation into the school's "discriminatory treatment of Palestinian students and their allies."
The school discriminated against pro-Palestinian protesters last week when President Minouche Shafik summoned New York Police Department officers in riot gear to arrest more than 100 students, said Palestine Legal.
The complaint details how the escalation against students, who have set up an encampment on campus to demand Columbia divest from companies that work with the Israeli government and to support calls for a cease-fire in Gaza, is part of a monthslong pattern of the university's targeting of pro-Palestinian students.
According to Palestine Legal, students of all backgrounds who have demanded an end to Israel's U.S.-backed massacre of Palestinians in Gaza "have been the target of extreme anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic harassment, including receiving multiple death threats, being harassed for wearing keffiyehs or hijab, doxxed, stereotyped, being treated differently by high-ranking administrators including... Shafik, an attack with a chemical agent that led to at least 10 students requiring hospitalization and dozens of others, including a Palestinian student, seeking medical attention, and more."
Columbia student Maryam Alwan, who Palestine Legal is representing in the complaint to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, said the university has "utterly failed to protect [her] from racism and abuse."
"Beyond that, the university has also played a role in this repression by having me arrested and suspended for peacefully protesting Israel's genocide in Gaza," said Alwan. "The violent repression we're facing as peaceful anti-war protesters is appalling. Palestinian students at Columbia deserve justice and accountability, not only for Israel's decadeslong oppression and violence against our people, but for the racism and discrimination we've experienced here on Columbia's campus."
Palestine Legal is representing four students in the case, as well as Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, which was suspended from the campus late last year after holding anti-war protests.
The group called Columbia's threat to call in the National Guard "gravely concerning."
"Columbia's vicious crackdown on student protests calling for Palestinian freedom amidst an ongoing genocide should alarm us all. Students have always been at the forefront of the most pressing social issues of the day," said Palestine Legal staff attorney Sabiya Ahamed.
College campuses have been the sites of frequent pro-Palestinian protests since October, and the NYPD's crackdown on Columbia students last week galvanized students at universities across the country.
The Biden administration has said little about the student demonstrations, but President Joe Biden referred to them broadly as "antisemitic protests" this week.
"We urge federal civil rights officials to do what Columbia has disgracefully failed to," said Ahamed. "Ensure the rights of Palestinian and allied students are protected at a moment when their voices are most essential."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top G20 Ministers Back 2% Wealth Tax for Global Billionaires
"It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods."
Apr 25, 2024
Ministers from four major economies on Thursday called for a 2% wealth tax targeting the world's billionaires—who currently only pay up to 0.5% of their wealth in personal income tax—to "invest in public goods such as health, education, the environment, and infrastructure."
Fernando Haddad, Brazil's finance minister; Svenja Schulze, Germany's minister for economic cooperation and development; Enoch Godongwana, South Africa's finance minister; Carlos Cuerpo, Spain's minister of economy, trade, and business; and MarÃa Jesús Montero, Spain's first vice president and finance minister, made their case in an opinion piece for The Guardian.
"The argument behind such tax is straightforward: We need to enhance the ability of our tax systems to fulfill the principle of fairness, such that contributions are in line with the capacity to pay," they explained. "Persisting loopholes in the system imply that high-net-worth individuals can minimize their income taxes."
"What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Brazil, Germany, and South Africa are all Group of 20 members while Spain is a permanent guest. The ministers noted that "Brazil has made the fight against hunger, poverty, and inequality a priority of its G20 presidency, a priority that German development policy also pursues and that Spain has ambitiously addressed domestically and globally."
"By directing two-thirds of total expenditure on social services and wage support, as well as by calibrating tax policy administration, South Africa continues to target a progressive tax and fiscal agenda that confronts the country's legacy of income and wealth inequality," they wrote.
The ministers continued:
It is time that the international community gets serious about tackling inequality and financing global public goods. One of the key instruments that governments have for promoting more equality is tax policy. Not only does it have the potential to increase the fiscal space governments have to invest in social protection, education, and climate protection. Designed in a progressive way, it also ensures that everyone in society contributes to the common good in line with their ability to pay. A fair share contribution enhances social welfare.
With exactly these goals in mind, Brazil brought a proposal for a global minimum tax on billionaires to the negotiation table of the world's major economies for the first time. It is a necessary third pillar that complements the negotiations on the taxation of the digital economy and on a minimum corporate tax of 15% for multinationals. The renowned economist Gabriel Zucman sketched out how this might work. Currently, there are about 3,000 billionaires worldwide. The tax could be designed as a minimum levy equivalent to 2% of the wealth of the superrich. It would not apply to billionaires who already contribute a fair share in income taxes. However, those who manage to avoid paying income tax would be obliged to contribute more towards the common good.
The five ministers cited estimates suggesting that "such a tax would potentially unlock an additional $250 billion in annual tax revenues globally—this is roughly the amount of economic damages caused by extreme weather events last year."
"Of course, the argument that billionaires can easily shift their fortunes to low-tax jurisdictions and thus avoid the levy is a strong one. And this is why such a tax reform belongs on the agenda of the G20," they added. "International cooperation and global agreements are key to making such tax effective. What the international community managed to do with the global minimum tax on multinational companies, it can do with billionaires."
Guardian economics editor Larry Elliott reported Thursday that "Zucman is now fleshing out the technical details of a plan that will again be discussed by the G20 in June. France has indicated support for a wealth tax and Brazil has been encouraged that the U.S., while not backing a global wealth tax, did not oppose it."
The French economist told Elliott that "billionaires have the lowest effective tax rate of any social group. Having people with the highest ability to pay tax paying the least—I don't think anybody supports that."
Except the billionaires, of course. "I don't want to be naive. I know the superrich will fight," Zucman added. "They have a hatred of taxes on wealth. They will lobby governments. They will use the media they own."
A few months ago, no one wanted to talk int. taxes, let alone on the super rich. Now we have a process (#G20), finance ministers (\ud83c\udde7\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddeb\ud83c\uddf7 \ud83c\uddff\ud83c\udde6 \ud83c\uddea\ud83c\uddf8 & others) supporting it, \ud83c\udde9\ud83c\uddea in part & everyone agreeing that proceeds should help fund climate and dev: https://t.co/ZldF557pAL— (@)
The ministers' opinion piece follows the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank's Spring Meetings last week, during which anti-poverty campaigners pressured the largest economies to address inequality with policies like taxing the superrich and to pour resources into the global debt and climate crises.
"The IMF and World Bank say that tackling inequality is a priority but in the same breath back policies that drive up the divide between the rich and the rest," Kate Donald, head of Oxfam International's Washington D.C. office, said last week. "Ordinary people struggle more and more every day to make up for cuts to the public funding of healthcare, education, and transportation. This high-stakes hypocrisy has to end."
Oxfam America policy lead Rebecca Riddell declared Thursday that "extreme inequality stands in the way of solving our most urgent global challenges. We need to tax the ultrawealthy."
"Read this brilliant new op-ed on the case for a global tax on billionaires, by ministers from Brazil, Germany, South Africa, and Spain," Riddell added, posting the piece on social media.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular