…………… all of us old debaters. The Real Sporer and our panel of debate experts (nerds) have had a good chance to talk over the contenders' Reagan Library rumble last night. One thing’s for sure, it certainly wasn’t the Thrilla in Manila. The conversation was dominated by criticism of the uninformative format that is now passing for “debate” in the Lincoln Douglas tradition.
First, how utterly apropos` it is that we would choose the shrillest and silliest of the liberal networks to host our debate while the Democrats fled from Fox because of perceived, but unevidenced, bias. MSNBC, particularly Chris Matthews (Carter White House speech writer/Tip O'Neill Chief of Staff) and Keith Olberman are the most radical of the liberal talk show hosts, although precious few actually watch their shows so their collective influence should earn the cover of Time. The choice of MSNBC was obviously meant to emphasize the difference between the party of dialogue and the party of liturgy.
Second, the content and demeanor well display the enormous difference between our candidates and theirs. What kind of a world is it where Hillary Clinton is the most masculine opponent we face? Of course, Evita Peron and Lucretia Borgia had pretty rough political elbows. (Republicans would be well advised to bring an official taster to White House meals should our latter day Evita return to power without Bill to restrain her more bloodthirsty instincts.) Where we offer optimistic realism married to the courage of our convictions, their debate offered little more than hatred tempered only by a desire to pander to the political winds of the time.
Third, why do we need moderators? While some journalists might at least try to ask important questions, certainly not the buffoonish Matthews who opportunely seized the moment to grind his mindless axe of Bush abhorrence, their contribution inherently limits the debate. Every second a moderator talks is a second that a future President is silent. Whose thoughts do you think are more relevant to your life? Why would any person who proposes to lead the free world in WW3 fear openly expressing, defending and demonstrating the superiority of their ideas and character? Perhaps we should demand more than merely avoidance of the catastrophic mistake from the dialectic by which we select the Commander in Chief.
Perhaps worst of all, these almost benighted moments of shared camera time is being globally juxtaposed against the lively face to face confrontation the French, yes the French, Presidential candidates had this week. Why can’t they ask each other questions? Why are the debates being broadcast to the nation’s smallest TV audience? Why shouldn’t all public broadcast networks be required to show the debates, and the conventions gavel-to-gavel for that matter? Maybe a little forced education, unfiltered by the network spin, would benefit the electoral process? Just a few questions that arose today.
Coming next, each player's TPC evaluation.
5 comments:
By Associated Press
Friday, May 4, 2007 - Updated: 06:10 PM EST
NEW YORK - In an angry commentary on April 25, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann accused Rudolph Giuliani of using the language of Osama bin Laden with "the same chilling nonchalance of the madman" to argue that Republicans would keep Americans safer than Democrats from terror.
Eight days later, Olbermann hosted MSNBC’s coverage of the first debate among Republican candidates for president.
Olbermann’s popularity and evolving image as an idealogue has led NBC News to stretch traditional notions of journalistic objectivity.
In asking about Giuliani’s response to a question on Roe vs. Wade, Olbermann asked, "Do you think that’s consistent with _ let’s use the kind word _ an evolving position on abortion?"
Similarly, Olbermann noted that Giuliani early in the debate appeared to offer an olive branch to Democrats but slipped back into harsher language, including the argument that a Republican president would keep the country safer than a Democrat.
"Did Mr. Giuliani correct course in the middle of the debate?" he asked. "Did someone slip him a note under the door and say, ’don’t be nice to Democrats under any circumstances?’"
For many years, the rule for journalists was simple: maintain strict objectivity.
Even for television hosts unafraid to say what they think _ Chris Matthews, for instance _ there’s still a little mystery about what they’ll do inside a voting booth.
For many years, the rule for journalists was simple: maintain strict objectivity.
Even for television hosts unafraid to say what they think _ Chris Matthews, for instance _ there’s still a little mystery about what they’ll do inside a voting booth.
Gonzo Journalism has reached a new level never envisioned by Dr. Gonzo.
Ken
So you support 'forced education', eh? What about all that "freedom" you usually espouse?
This essay was a lot of useless noise, Mr. Sporer. Pretty much fact-free but overflowing with opinion. Have you read the debate analysis by Jamie Foser? He actually quotes questions and answers while coming to the conclusion that Matthews gave softball questions to everyone. I wish your argument were as cogent as Foser's, which is here:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200705050003
I am embarrassed to read such trash talk as your comment about Hillary poisoning her dinner guests in the same paragraph where you say the Democrat's debate "offered little more than hatred".
Cast out the log in your own eye before you worry about the speck in your neighbor's eye.
Post a Comment