Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRating The Debates: America Weighs In
Remember the Democratic presidential primary debate in April, when ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos delivered a stunningly lowbrow and ludicrous set of questions to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? In a particularly dark moment for TV journalism - where junk news, celebrity gossip and "I can talk louder than you" punditry have replaced investigative reporting and hard-hitting news - this debate was a national embarrassment.
As last night's presidential debate approached, the media were still obsessed with "lipstick on a pig" and deciding if Sarah Palin's husband should be called "First Dude." We simply can't hope for better journalism. It's time we held the accountable -- starting with the debate moderators.
Which is exactly what 4,600 Americans did after last night's debate at RatetheDebates.org. While anchors and pundits were scrambling to spin the candidates' performances, Free Press and media analyst Andrew Tyndall helped Americans grade the media's performance.
So how did American's rate the first presidential debates? The results are in:
It appears that supporters of Sen. Barack Obama were more dissatisfied than supporters of Sen. John McCain with the narrow scope of the foreign policy questions chosen by Lehrer.
Obama supporters in the panel tended to criticize the absence of questions on Africa (80% vs. 58% of McCain's) and China (74% vs.64%); and on the foreign policy issues of global warming (89% vs. 42%); human rights abuses (85% vs. 57%); AIDS and other diseases (86% vs. 55%); and globalized trade (76% vs. 56%). The supporters of both candidates gave high marks to Lehrer's selection of questions about four major regions: At least 70% of each group scored him as "just right" for the time he devoted to Afghanistan and Pakistan; to Iran; to Russia and NATO; and to Iraq.
Lehrer's decision to depart from the designated foreign policy topic of the debate and include questions about the financial crisis drew little criticism. More than half of each group of supporters rated the time he spent on high finance (50% of Obama's supporters vs. 50% of McCain's), federal spending (52% vs. 56%) and taxation (58% vs. 56%) as "just right." Many Obama supporters complained that Lehrer's economic questions did not also cover poverty (86% vs. 38%), Social Security (83% vs. 63%) and unemployment (77% vs. 46%) as well.
There was little difference between the two groups of partisans in their assessment of Lehrer's performance. Fewer than 10% of the overall panel said he did a "poor job" (36% excellent, 54% adequate). The rest of the results can be found here.
RatetheDebates.org also asked volunteers to weigh in on the media's overall election coverage. McCain and Obama supporters alike tended to be more critical of the quality of election coverage by traditional broadcast news sources. Nearly 7 out of 10 McCain supporters (69%) rated election coverage by national network news as "poor" (versus 52% of Obama supporters). Nearly 7 out of 10 Obama supporters (68%) counted as "poor" local television news (versus 58% of McCain supporters).
They were split on their assessment of commercial radio. Of McCain's supporters, 58% rated commercial radio coverage as either "adequate" or "excellent." Obama supporters overwhelmingly ranked commercial radio coverage as "poor" (78%).
Interestingly, the two groups of supporters tended to watch the debate on different outlets. MSNBC (27%) and PBS (26%) were the favorite outlets for Obama partisans. Fox News Channel was the favorite for fully 43% of the McCain voters in the panel.
Three more debates remain, giving you three more chances to rate them. Are the moderators covering the issues that matter to you, or are they focused on candidate gossip and campaign gotchas? Did they hold the candidates responsible, asking tough questions, or did they lob softballs? You be the judge.
39 Comments so far
Show AllAll those ridiculous questions about Iran being a threat.
I call Bulls*t!
I refuse to waste time on this FALSE NARRATIVE.
Saudi Arabia is a 100x bigger threat to our country's welfare than Iran.
And Russia did NOT attack Georgia.
Russia RESPONDED after South Ossetia was invaded.
Why do Obama supporters not call out their candidate for repeating this LIE!?
If you accept this GARBAGE from your candidate you're no better than Bush supporters.
Absolutely!!!! Surely there are others out there who ask these questions. It never ceases to amaze me how few people do question the lies fed to them....even when they know they are lies. Are these people drugged? Wakey Wakey Americans!!!!! You have less than 6 weeks to demand your representative....your potential new leader....tell the truth. You have that short time to ask the tricky questions....to put them on the spot...to see the mettle of the man. So far we have seen none of that. Are you prepared to settle .... again???
There'll be no questions on the Constitutional abuses of the Bush administration.
There'll be no questions on the limit of Presidential power.
There'll be no questions on global climate change.
There'll be no questions about breaking up media monopolies.
There'll be no questions about hackable voting machines and purged voter rolls.
Have fun with your "debates".
I love debates. Wish we could have one. Let Nader, McKinney, Paul, and even Barr in, then let Amy Goodman or Bill Moyers moderate.
The thing about debates is that you should have two parties that fundamentally and passionately disagree about the topics to be debated....the fact is, these two dont disagree about enough. Where was the good old stoush that one expects from these debates. Here we had two men , one who wouldnt look at the other and amused himself with smug little grins whilst the other addressed him, the other who shrugged his shoulders when he should have stood and fought.
How is the average American supposed to know who to vote for...and God knows they have little intellligence in that regard. Voters in general are a fickle lot, but they still need something to grab hold of and there was nothing there in this debate. Obama came off as conservative and almost apathetic...McCain, as smug and gormless, namedropping and a travelogue really all he had to offer. It seems a shame that voters will have to choose which they feel is the best of a bad lot, rather than becoming passionate about a potential new leader. I fear there are no leaders left in the world...only orators or old fogies who constantly refer to the past, thinking this will suffice in today's world.
What a waste of space this debate was....I wholeheartedly regret waking at 3 in the morning to watch it.
The debate was staged, the candidates rehearsed, the questions orchestrated and pre-approved by both mobsters, and the host was in on the whole charade with both Obaminable and Mad Kane. So why analyze the sham?
Only questions/talking points authorized by the ruling cabal were allowed.
This was not a real debate, but the expected scam.
Had Nader, McKinney and Barr been allowed in, we could've perhaps had a real debate, except that any of the 3 would put two sentences together and unmask both Obomber and McInsane so fast their heads would explode. It wouldn't be fair.
The problem is actually that Obama is the WRONG candidate for this particular election. The Democrats made a huge tactical error in nominating him. If Democratic voters had ignored the pundits and voted for one of the less "viable" candidates, such as Gravel or Kucinich, or drafted Feingold, it WOULD BE A LANDSLIDE!!
Yeah, but see...Gravel or Kucinich didn't make it - Obama did. And it was Obama who debated McCain. Now, as sucky as this is, one of them will be our next president.
BTW, Obama had some real proposals in the debate. McCain showed his hand - war first, war last, war forever. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and maybe a surprise or two. You won't have to choose - we'll be in all of them. He's a man with a chip on his shoulder and a debt to repay.
Bon voyage.
Neither McCain nor Obama have the power--they are not the ones who decide when and where to go to war. As a high-ranking naval officer (and I'm sorry I can't recall his name or the occasion right now)said, "We work for the Banks."
The banks don't have much clout at the moment.
We've just seen what a rogue president can do. It's unconstitutional as hell, but obviously, it happens.
I'm not so sure that Obama is the wrong candidate. You're saying that if a more progressive candidate were the nominee, more people would vote for the democratic ticket. But surely there is enough outrage at Bush, Cheney, and the republicans in general, including McCain, that more people will be voting democratic anyway. And Obama's right-wingishness and desire to kill people in Afghanistan will help recruit some independents.
The real problems are: all the racists in this country who won't vote for Obama because his father was black; the criminal tactics used by the republicans to disenfranchise voters; and the fact that the people who control the electronic voting machines are republicans.
Anyone who trades on this phony War on Terror is not the right candidate.
"And Obama's right-wingishness and desire to kill people in Afghanistan will help recruit some independents."
Nonsense. Obama may have some right-wing tendencies to those on the edge of the left, but if you think he really has a desire to kill people, it renders your whole post moot.
The USA went in to Afghanistan and Iraq and roiled up a hornet's nest. We can hate that fact all we want, but we can't deny that the hornets are furious. The problem is, there is no good choice now and anyone who says there is I wouldn't trust with a plug nickel.
BTW, I wouldn't bet on the American voters doing the smart thing.
Together Obama and McCain framed for the people what is acceptable to think....what was not said is what is not acceptable, such as the fact that the US is waging an immoral war in Iraq and even Afghanistan.......Such as the fact that imperialism is wrong and the US is not a force for good.........this you will never hear from these two..............lizard
of course, no one mentions the sneers, the smirks, or the beady, shifting, blinking eyes of mccain last nite when obama tried to attack. all that body language so reminiscent of our current leader in his pitiful attempts at debate. and look what that body language has given us.
perhaps obama realizes that if he attacks too hard, mccain's short fuse will ignite, creating all sorts of problems before election day. obama, go for the fucking jugular.
Yes. A smart guy can always fire up a bully, and McCain is known to be short-tempered.
"Rating The Debates: America Weighs In"
The title itself proves the author to be a sell-out
WHAT DEBATE ?!?!
The only people allowed to "debate" were the those chosen by the corporations as potential figureheads to the corporate kingdom. If any candidate dared to actually try to represent the people (I'm sorry but Uncle Barack saying "change" a billion times aint it, and the corporations know as much) they were declared "unelectable" by our corporate masters and promptly discarded.
Liberals have to stop selling out. Why are any liberals calling that scam a debate. It wasn't a debate. Shame on you Megan Tady
However, if I was an Obama supporter, I would be furious at how limply he attacked McCain. This should be the easiest election ever for Democrats and they're blowing it.
That's because Democrats are not a real party, and limply is their middle name.
Democrats are intentionally losing this election, that's why they have nominated a black man for president of, get this, racist America!
The plan is to have a Democratic Congress and a Republican White House, so the 'gridlock' can continue.
Can you imagine a Democratic White House and Congress? They would run out of excuses. The 'gridlock' must continue.
The only good thing about the debates is to demonstrate the lack of a meaningful difference between the candidates and their mutual contempt for allowing other voices to participate.
MESSAGE TO OBAMA: Follow Bill Maher's advice. Go medieval! That way, the debates will at least be entertaining.
And the winner of the debate was ---Nader. Think about how different it would have been if his voice had not been silenced. The Debate Commission, in collusion with McCain/Obama negotiated a fraudulent contract to exclude all others.
VOTE NADER - your economic survival is in peril. Right now, as I type this, the rulers are behind closed doors, and in secret, designing a 'bailout' for the most wealthy. Nader warned about this years ago.
NADER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO EVEN HAS A CHANCE OF GETTING US OUT OF THIS MESS.
Wrong. Nader has ZERO chance of getting into office and thus ZERO power to help us with anything whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zed. Zero.
OBAMA or McCAIN will be president. No one else. Don't like it? Join the club. Not many do. But that's how it is. Deal with it.
Wishing for Nader is the same thing as wishing for Superman to swoop in and solve all your problems. It's not. Going. To happen. Get it through your skull now.
A vote for Nader is a vote for NOTHING. It accomplishes nothing.
"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good souls to do nothing".
How does that nothing sound to you now? How many times now will you help evil triumph?
You might as well vote for Superman.
What you portray as a realistic attitude may very well be a manifestation of hopelessness. How on earth can we achieve progress if you preach such as voting for someone in whom you do not place any trust?
I would suggest that voting for Obama, a war mongering corporatist sellout whose every speech is filled with airy platitudes, no substance and little vision is worse than waiting for Superman, it is simply surrendering.
.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Which evil are you talking about? McCain's evil or Obama's evil? They are both pro-war (occupation), have similar views on militarism, both are corporatists... yes, there are some differences. If your argument for Obama is that it will slow things down that may be true. I don't agree with those that say that there are no differences; but the differences are too small and insignificant to capitulate over and over again. It's time for Obama supporters to WAKE UP and start supporting only real progressives - vote for Nader or McKinnney.
The Changing of the Puppets
Do we need a rose garden hawk with an apple
a Mc tired Cain to smite one Abel
or....
a suited one to ensorcel
or sell some same old
with more dignified freedom drops
a sort of good cop to soothe
our topsy turvy plot
to dress up the brown shirts
of the DOW clicks
as we await
our puppet changing fate
or..
Could we start a love-olution
to redeem the mirror
of crimes committed out of fear
and bondage ever dear
John McCain and a large part of American Population is arrogant and locked in the past ,the world has moved on Anglo American dominance of the None European world is on the wane .
The Anglo American answer to dissention to its one sided policies is to Bomb them Shoot them Lock them up or Starve them
It is American Foreign policy of exclusion co-option and exploitation of the masses of numerous none Europeans Nations abroad that is the root cause and fueling the contempt of America's Hatred
Exclusion of their populous
Co option and corruption of their ruling class
Exploitation of their masses
America is only acerbating the problem when and wherever she and her surrogate armies try to bomb and shoot their way to maintaining the old ways of dealing with subversion.
In my opinion Americans are now more at risk than ever , both from within and without her borders and I would not like to bet which one is greater.
From Asia to the Middle East Africa, South America, Balkans, Russia
America has always exploited her poor , her culture is based on exploitation rather than Cooperation and now she has began to exploit her own middle class.(eating her own young) Her poor is getting more embolden, her middle class is beginning to grasp where the problem and the skeletons truly lays
China understands this new world and Anglo Americas Achilles Heel .
In China’s quest for doing business around the world she is creating friends by simply doing the opposite to the Anglo American way
Inclusion of the Populous in the development of their countries
None interference of the countries internal politics
None assistant of a countries ruling class in the exploitation of their masses
In my opinion American over all policies are gravely out of touch with this new emerging world both at home and abroad
Aren't you glad you don't live here then!
Seriously, I believe you'll find the new emerging world isn't that new. Everyone you mentioned is very busy practicing Nationalistic trade policies and Nationalistic political policies.
It may be a bit premature to think that they are all disengaged from us as the Globalists say. But we are about to find out if the world still gets pneumonia if we get a cold.
How will I rate the debates?
Meaningless, boring and nothing more than entertainment where two guys, both of the Corporate Control Party rehash their points and try to sound different.
Let Nader in.
What you had in the debates was two corporate soldiers lying to each other!
Nothing but sound bites and campaign sloganeering, signifying nothing. Neither candidate won any points from me, but that swhat I expected going in....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
These "debates" are nothing but a dog and pony show put on by the Democratic and Republican parties, who literally control the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates*.
These "debates" help control and channel public opinion away from the most crucial issues facing our society: Our massive military and illegal invasions of countries 10,000 miles away, the concentration of power and wealth in a few hands, an unsustainable economy built on debt and extraction of wealth by the super rich, lack of a health care system that provides good care to everyone irrespective of the ability to pay, a chief executive whose powers approach the dictatorial.
We live in a country of 300,000,000. Yet we are presented with a choice of at most 2 candidates in most elections and a government with only 2 parties. This lack of choice impoverishes our democracy by artifically limiting the range of issues and opinions that get serious consideration. The unconscionable $700 billion bankster bailout being the latest example. Where is the party that stands firm against giveaways to billionaire gamblers?
*Check out the commission website http://www.debates.org/pages/lead.html. The co-chairmen are the former heads of the Republican and Democratic parties, Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Paul G. Kirk, Jr.
"This lack of choice impoverishes our democracy by artifically limiting the range of issues and opinions that get serious consideration."
Well said. And, I might add, the prime directive of propaganda outlets such as Fox.
This, I hope, is not the predictive analysis you intend. But you fully covered the mythical basis in McCain's favor.
Now its my turn to be the ditto head.
Thanks DogLeg, I had time to add my intent to vote for Obama.
My conclusions of the debate are not as beneficial to Senator Obama as Megan Tady's poll findings indicate. I am just so impressed how Senator McCain knows how to address the fools and proud patriots of America. Neither candidate hit the ball out of the park. The polls still predict no definite winner.
But what concerns me is with the great public dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, the raging turmoil of two wars, and possible U.S. financial collapse, how can this presidential election be so close? This is a question often asked, but never answered.
In these debates, I believe Senator Obama is at a distinct disadvantage because of the serious flaws underlying American culture that denies a more equitable and peaceful society. Because of the excessive pride of most Americans, Obama cannot critique such core issues if he wants to get elected.
\
Senator McCain is the great example of American culture, white, wealthy, a war hero, supposedly wise, a great defender of American capitalism, proud of American military power, a great anti-communist, and tough on advancing American corporate interests all over the world, whether justified or not, and even if it means going to war. One half of the U.S. population is in love with American military power and how God has destined America to rule the world. To these voters, Senator John McCain would make a great Imperial President.
Senator Obama though is truly of a more compassionate nature that transcends the rights of capital to rule over all human rights, and the ambitions of American Empire. To Senator Obama, the U.S. needs a change of heart, a change in values, and to be a healing force in the world rather than a destructive force of Empire. This should be America's destiny for the 21st Century, and for that reason, I am voting for Obama.
Unfortunately, a return to the cold war is being fostered by Senator McCain to advance his position to win the U.S. Presidential election. This strategy of Senator McCain is really playing with fire as Barack Obama is now being forced to prove he is a tougher anti-communist than McCain including defending a U.S. stooge President of Georgia and a phony democracy in Georgia as well.
So not only is Senator McCain Obama’s major contender for the presidency, but the delusions of American exceptionalism and American destiny are opposing forces to Senator Obama’s election as well. I just hope disgust of the Bush administration will overcome America's taste for power.
How can Obama's compassion really be measured? Sure, he can turn a phrase which sounds like compassion, but for someone who consistently supported the campaigns of those candidates in 2006 (including Joe Lieberman) who were being challenged by anti-war candidates, leads me to question how seriously compassionate Obama really is.
For Obama, I think naked ambition trumps compassion where compassion is most needed.
Compassion Mr.Chips? Because Obama chose to be a community organizer and did one of his graduate thesis on Saul Alinsky and because his whole past work was compassion, what he must do to win this election is another matter.