October, 08 2008, 10:04am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jen Howard, Free Press, (202) 265-1490 x22 or (703) 517-6273
Citizens Want Debate Moderators to Challenge Candidate Spin
NEW YORK
John McCain's supporters seemed happy with the ground rules of the
second presidential debate in Nashville. Barack Obama's supporters
seemed happy with the results.
Those are the findings of the third Citizens Media Scorecard of the
2008 campaign season. An online panel of more than 2,800 volunteers was
recruited by Free Press to rate the conduct of moderator Tom Brokaw
during Tuesday night's "town hall" debate.
Brokaw selected some questions from audience members and from more
than 6 million e-mail and Internet submissions, but a large portion of
the questions were his own. "Brokaw's balance of issues received high
marks from partisans of both candidates," said Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall Report, who designed the survey. "And their complaints about bias were in perfect balance, too."
The panel thought that Brokaw's decision not to fact-check the
candidates or challenge their spin was a problem: 83% of Obama
supporters and 75% of McCain supporters wanted to see more challenging
follow-up questions from the moderator.
"Like other moderators before him, Brokaw allowed the senators to
avoid answering questions and meander to their own comfort zones," said
one volunteer rater.
"[Brokaw] kept saying their answers were too long but didn't focus enough on what they were saying," commented another.
Republican McCain has long insisted that he prefers the town hall
format for political debates. And, according to the panel, his
supporters share his preference. Almost half the McCain partisans (48%
vs. 24% for Barack Obama supporters) judged the town hall format in
Nashville to be superior to the moderated format 11 days ago in Oxford,
Miss.
By contrast, almost twice as many Obama supporters in the panel
preferred Jim Lehrer of PBS, the Mississippi moderator, over Brokaw
(43% vs. 21%) in a head-to-head comparison. After the Mississippi
debate, 42% of Obama supporters rated Lehrer's performance as
"excellent"; after the Nashville town hall, Brokaw received a lower 28%
"excellent" rating from Obama's fans.
Despite the format, Obama's supporters were more likely to say their
candidate won in Nashville (92% vs. 76% in Mississippi), whereas
McCain's supporters saw no improvement (84% said he won both). McCain's
supporters distinguished between their candidate's performance in the
foreign policy sequence of the town hall compared with economic and
social policy: 92% said McCain won in foreign policy, only 80% and 70%
in the latter issues.
There were signs that this second debate delivered diminishing
returns as a voter education exercise. Almost half the volunteers in
the panel stated that it taught them nothing new (45% of Obama
supporters, 55% of McCain's) about their opponent's views, a steep rise
from the 29% and 37%, respectively, who said the debate in Mississippi
was "not at all" helpful in learning the candidates' stances on the
issues.
Brokaw received high praise for his choice of issues. More than half
of each group of supporters (64% of Obama supporters, 50% of McCain's)
found the questions "extremely" serious and relevant. Brokaw received a
"just right" rating from more than half of the members of both groups
for his focus on four economic issues -- housing, taxes, the financial
crisis and federal spending (62%, 62%, 59% and 59%) -- as well as
energy and health care (70% and 74%). He also drew praise as "just
right" for his focus on war and peace, terrorism and human rights and
genocide (66%, 70% and 65%).
Criticism of Brokaw mostly concerned what he omitted. A majority of
both groups complained about Brokaw's lack of questioning on crime and
abortion (71% and 70%). Almost all McCain supporters (92%) wanted
questions on immigration; almost all Obama supporters (85%) wanted
questions on poverty.
There were few complaints about Brokaw's bias toward one candidate
or the other. Most of the members of each group of supporters found no
favoritism (74% of Obama's, 70% of McCain's); a minority saw evidence
of bias, almost always against their preferred candidate (25% and 26%).
Although Free Press extended outreach to all parts of the political
spectrum, Obama supporters considerably outnumbered McCain's in survey
respondents, as they have in our two previous panels. To avoid drowning
out the Republican perspective, Tyndall contrasted 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.
The two groups of supporters tended to watch the debate on different
outlets. MSNBC (28%) and PBS (22%) were the favorite outlets for Obama
partisans. Fox News Channel was the favorite for fully half (50%) of
the McCain supporters. These viewing patterns have held firm for all
three debates to date.
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.
For more information, visit RatetheDebates.org.
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
Human Rights Group Warns US Gaza Plan Will Impose 'Unlawful Collective Imprisonment' of Palestinians as New Details Emerge
“The design of these proposed cities mirrors the historical model of ghettos,” said the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, which said the US plans to cram 25,000 people into areas smaller than a square kilometer.
Dec 04, 2025
A prominent international human rights organization is warning that the United States' plan for postwar Gaza will impose "unlawful collective imprisonment" on the Palestinian civilians who have survived two years of genocide.
In November, several news outlets reported on the Trump administration's plan to carve Gaza in two: a so-called “green zone” controlled by Israel and a “red zone” controlled by the militant group Hamas.
The US would construct what it called “Alternative Safe Communities” for Palestinians to live in the Israeli-controlled portion of Gaza, which is over half of the territory under the current "ceasefire" agreement.
The New York Times described these communities as "compounds" of 20,000 to 25,000 people, where Israeli officials reportedly argued they should not be allowed to leave.
The initial reporting raised fears that the US and Israel were constructing what would amount to a "concentration camp," where Palestinians would be forced to live in squalid conditions without freedom of movement.
On Wednesday, the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor released new details on how Palestinians, currently facing mass displacement from their homes in the portion of the strip not occupied by Israel, would be corralled into the green zone under the US proposal.
The Geneva-based group issued a stark warning about the plan, which it said carried "grave risks, including the effective displacement of Palestinians from their homes and the transformation of large parts of Gaza into closed military zones under the direct control of the Israeli army."
“Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life."
Euro-Med's report explains that the transfer of Palestinians would be carried out using "various pressure tactics."
"This is done by creating a coercive environment in the red zone and making access to relative protection and basic services conditional on relocating to designated areas within the green zone, following extensive security screening and vetting," the report says. "This removes any genuine element of consent and places the process squarely within the scope of forced displacement prohibited under international humanitarian law."
It also provides new details on the conditions Palestinians would be subject to once they've arrived: "The plan includes the establishment of 'cities' of prefabricated container homes (caravans) in the green zone, each housing around 25,000 people within an area of no more than one square kilometer and enclosed by walls and checkpoints."
This means these Palestinian cantons would be over three times as densely populated as the Tel Aviv District, the most crowded in Israel, which has about 8,130 people per square kilometer.
"Entry and exit would be permitted only through security screening, effectively converting these sites into overcrowded detention camps that impose severe restrictions on residents’ freedom of movement and daily life," the report continues.
This is not the first proposal to use the promise of safety to lure Palestinians into an enclosed space without the right to leave.
Earlier this year, following US President Donald Trump's call for the people of Palestine to be forcibly removed from the Gaza Strip, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz proposed the creation of a massive “humanitarian city” built on the ruins of Rafah that would be used as part of an “emigration plan” for hundreds of thousands of displaced people.
Under that plan, Palestinians would have been given “security screenings” and once inside would not be allowed to leave. Humanitarian organizations, including those inside Israel, roundly condemned the plan as essentially a “concentration camp.”
Euro-Med said that the design laid out in the new US plan "mirrors the historical model of ghettos, in which colonial and racist regimes confined specific groups to sealed areas surrounded by walls and guard posts, with movement and resources controlled externally, as seen in Europe during World War II and in other colonial contexts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Somebody’s Getting Rich’: Senator Suggests Trump Pardon Spree Is Yet Another Grift
"There's clearly a whole group of people around him that are making millions of dollars, and they're handing out favors to folks in the form of pardons," said Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy.
Dec 04, 2025
A Democratic US senator suggested during a television appearance late Wednesday that President Donald Trump's flurry of pardons for fraudsters and other white-collar criminals—from disgraced politicians to former corporate executives—is yet another cash grab concocted by the president's inner circle and lobbyists with ties to the White House.
“My sense is that somebody is getting rich, ultimately,“ Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told MSNBC's Chris Hayes shortly after Trump pardoned a former entertainment venue executive who was indicted by the president's own Justice Department over the summer.
"There is a cabal of administration officials and MAGA-friendly lobbyists that are in league together," Murphy continued. "They all huddle together at these elite restaurants and clubs in Washington, DC, and they likely hatch deals in which, if somebody pays a MAGA-affiliated lobbyist a couple hundred thousand dollars, then maybe you’ll be able to get a pardon.”
"There's clearly a whole group of people around him that are making millions of dollars, and they're handing out favors to folks in the form of pardons in order to make sure that they get their pockets lined," the senator added. "That's just, like, bread and butter corruption."
Watch:
The pardons Trump is handing out are a huge, growing scandal that not enough people are talking about. This is a money making operation - for for Trump, his family, his crypto pals, and the Trump-affiliated lobbyists and grifters who the pardon seekers pay. pic.twitter.com/FwLRyHDMqN
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) December 4, 2025
Since the start of his second term, Trump has used his pardon power to rescue well-connected executives and political allies from accountability, invariably claiming—without evidence—that the Biden administration manufactured the charges.
Many of those pardoned have been accused or convicted of white-collar crimes; "fraud" appears 57 times on the Justice Department page listing the names and offenses of those who have received clemency from the president this year.
Trump's willingness to unthinkingly pardon fraudsters has spawned a lucrative business for lobbyists and consultants linked to the administration. NBC News reported earlier this year that "two people directly familiar with proposals to lobbying firms said they knew of a client’s offer of $5 million to help get a case to Trump."
Changpeng Zhao, the billionaire founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, reportedly had a lobbyist working to secure his pardon, which came in late October.
"I don't know who he is," Trump said when asked about the decision, adding that "a lot of people asked me" to pardon Zhao, who pleaded guilty in 2023 to "failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program."
Trump also made history with what's believed to be the nation's first-ever presidential pardon of a corporation: HDR Global Trading, the owner and operator of crypto exchange BitMEX. The company was sentenced earlier this year to a $100 million fine for violating anti-money laundering laws.
In a report published in September, Murphy detailed how corporate pardons "are happening throughout the federal government, in the form of rescinded orders, dropped cases, and the first-ever presidential pardon for a corporation." The watchdog group Public Citizen estimates that the Trump administration has halted or dropped more than 160 corporate enforcement cases since the start of the president's second term.
"Corporate pardons are just one of the ways that Trump is replacing democracy and rule of law with authoritarian power and rule by personal favor," Murphy wrote in his report. "If we are going to save our democracy, we need to act now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Yet Another Trump Jr.-Backed Company Receives Massive Pentagon Deal
One legal expert said the contract "falls under the cloud of conflicts of interest we have seen throughout this administration."
Dec 04, 2025
For the second time this year, a little-known company backed by Donald Trump Jr. has scored a major contract with the US Department of Defense.
The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that Vulcan Elements—a tiny startup of 30 employees that specializes in producing rare-earth magnets used in drones, radars, and other pieces of military equipment—has scored a $620 million loan from the Pentagon as part of "a $1.4 billion deal to increase the supply of magnets for industries alongside partner ReElement Technologies."
Vulcan has received funding from 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023 that brought Trump Jr. in as a partner last year. According to the Financial Times' analysis, "at least four of 1789’s portfolio companies have won contracts from the Trump administration this year, amounting to more than $735 million."
Revelations about the Vulcan Elements contract come just weeks after the Florida-based drone startup Unusual Machines, in which Trump Jr. has held a $4 million stake, received a contract from the US Army to manufacture 3,500 drone motors. Additionally, reported the Financial Times, the Army indicated that it planned "to order an additional 20,000 components" from the Trump Jr.-backed firm next year.
As Popular Information reported earlier this year, Unusual Machines first brought Trump Jr. on as an adviser just weeks after his father won the 2024 presidential election, even though he had "no notable experience with drones or military contracting."
A Popular Information report published Thursday noted that "both Vulcan CEO John Maslin and Unusual Machines CEO Allan Evans said that Trump Jr. played no role in securing the government contracts," although the report flagged statements by Trump Jr. made earlier this year about helping to screen candidates for key positions in the Pentagon who would be in position to reward companies he's backing without him having to make a direct appeal.
Kedric Payne, general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center, told the Financial Times that that the government deals scored by Trump Jr.-backed companies look ethically dubious even if the president's son didn't directly use his influence to procure them.
“Presidents are expected to avoid even the appearance that they are using their office to financially benefit themselves or their family,” he said. “While we do not know for certain if, or how, the president may have influenced this loan, it falls under the cloud of conflicts of interest we have seen throughout this administration.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


