At least one person felt that the debate was worthwhile. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote, "I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities." A journalists job is to make politicians uncomfortable. That's funny, I thought the journalists job was to inform the public, whether that means making the politician uncomfortable or not. If Brooks thinks this is the mission of all journalists, then I understand why the New York Times has sucked so badly lately.
Most media types strongly disagreed with Brooks' assessment. Check out some opinions after the jump.
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network's Sunday morning hour, "This Week" (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly "World News"), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was "40 years ago, when I was 8 years old," Obama said with exasperation…
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates — or was he really patting himself on the back? — for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
Will Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News:
With your performance tonight — your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters — you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.
Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher:
In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations.
Jason Linkins, Huffington Post:
Why in the world George Stephanopoulos felt compelled to ask Barack Obama if Reverend Wright "loved America" after he had already been made to give another recitation of his repudiation of Wright's remarks is a question that simply defies the imagination. What sort of sensible answer can be given to that question? It would require astral projection to properly gauge another man's emotional state. And if you want to ask Hillary Clinton to account for the odd contortions she advanced on the matter of her Bosnia recollections, just sack up and ask. Don't hide behind the additional, pointless cruelty of a random voter's scoldings that Clinton lost their vote. What a wholly superfluous pile on!
And the flag lapel pin question came with this admonishment from Charles Gibson: "It keeps coming up, again and again." Well, no shit, Charlie! It keeps "coming up, again and again" because the media resolutely refuses to obtain the necessary courage to stop doing so.
Interim Editor
Cord Jefferson Editorial Director
David Hauslaib Publisher
Jossip Initiatives
All Hip Hop
The Assimilated Negro
The B Life
Black Agenda Report
Black Male Appreciation
Black Prof
Black Voices
Bossip
Cake & Ice Cream
Clips and Kisses
Clutch Magazine
Concrete Loop
Crunk & Disorderly
Essence
EUR Web
The Fashion Bomb
Giant
Greasy Guide
Hip Candy
HipHopDX
Hip & Pop
Juicy News
King
Miss Info
Mollygood
My Urban Report
Nah Right
Necole Bitchie
Nova Slim
Panache Report
Racialicious
The Rap Up
Rhymes With Snitch
Sandra Rose
Shake Your Beauty
Straight Outta NYC
SOHH
TMZ
Vibe
Wendy Williams
XXL
Young, Black, Fabulous
I've loathed George Stephanopoulus since he shed crocodile tears at Bill's "betrayal" over the Lewinsky affair. What a bunch of baloney. I wish I could have booed him through the screen.
I guess they've gone through all the substantive (read: policy-based) issues over the past 438 debates, so they had to go "Rehash the nonsense for the people who have been living under a rock for the past month".
Can't say anything they said made me change my perception of them in any way.
Oh, and I want to agree with you about what a journalist's job is. Making politicians uncomfortable should be an unintended consequence, not the point. But apparently not at a time when partisan opinionmakers like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann command higher ratings and respect than real journalists. Getting a rise out of politicians, just to exploit their reactions, is what seems to matter.
The Obamablogs are going bezerk over the insult of their Magic Prince being "attacked" and "vilified" - GIMME A BREAK!
FINALLY Prince Obama got his small taste of what it is to live two hours worth of what Hillary Clinton has gotten for DECADES.
The Mighty One Trick Pony got served with tough questions and as usual, fumbled and flubbered his way through the answers. Does the Media have the right to ask everything they did? YES. It's what they do. Have they been doing that with Obama since his candidacy? NO, because he's the Mghty Prince of Chicago-land, rode in on his Hope and Unity Magic Horse, but mostly, made a better story to write than "old-white-cackling-calculating" Hillary. All the Republicans are doing are salivating at the chance to rip him apart.
Obama's red-carpet treatment by the MSM has been ridiculous, making a hero & prince out of somebody that hasn't done anything in his career that is worthy of such adulation other than "inspire" people and run for president. That is all he is known for.
If the MSM and Republicans can make John Kerry, a 3 time Purple Heart Vietnam War veteran and 30-year career in the senate, and Max Cleland, another Vetnam War hero and senator with an illustrious career as traitors to the US, IMAGINE what they'll do to Obama.
It's not 'cause he's black, it's because Obama has no EXPEIRENCE to handle the controversy.
I would love to vote for a black man that could be President of the US, but Oprah was wrong. Obama is not "THE ONE."
There was absolutely NO COMPARISON to what Hillary has faced in a past debate compared to yesterday's ABC debate. If you try to compare them, you're just being silly. ABC's agenda was all too clear–especially with ol Stephanopoulos being a former Clinton staffer.
I agree that the media should ask all types of tough questions, after all they are running for President of the United States. The American public has a right to know all about the candidates, but I think anyone with sense could see that not only did ABC waste precious debate time on trivial issues.
Obama has shown that he can take a hit and hit back too. His campaign has wasted NO TIME in responding to critics. He will be more than ready in the fall for McCain & the Republicans. John Kerry was weak. He did not respond quickly and forcefully, which is why he was swiftboated. Obama has already shown that he has learned from Kerry's mistakes in 2004.
Red Beans: One Trick Pony? Prince of Chicago Land? REALLY? REALLY? Give me a BREAK!
If anyone is a one trick pony, it's Hillary. I am positive that Obama would have wrapped this nomination up long ago if she didn't have her one trick to rely on: her last name CLINTON…the only reason why she's still hanging on. UGH.
OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW!!!
MR&B: With all due respect, you're missing the point.
If they had harangued Hillary about issues totally unrelated to her record or platform (which they haven't in any debate), my reaction would have been the same: disgust.
The fact is they know these stories get them ratings.
The era of the honorable television journalist is over. Enter the era where the biggest jackass that gets the most buzz, by any means necessary, wins. Look at the prominence of Bill O'Reilly. He does NOTHING except talk like a dried-up old codger and he gets ratings that make the rest weep.
Why report the news when acting like a slightly more sophisticated version of Jerry Springer gets higher ratings with far less work?
I agree that the media gave Obama a free ride for a long time while they harangued Hillary (about her *record and platform* though). But maybe because they were embarrassed by that SNL skit, but they've done a 180 and now they're haranguing Obama.
Meanwhile, their love affair with "that maverick" McCain continues…
While yes, it wasn't wise to have a former Clinton Staffer as a moderator, and while yes, he did rail on Obama, I actually think that despite it, Obama tied with Hillary in terms of "performance". Hillary herself appeared shrill and evasive, and she didn't really have anything substantial to throw against him - she mentioned the pastor business (which I hope most US citizens have gotten over), but she had to answer questions about "sniper fire" from Bosnia. And both of them handled the gun control issue very badly.
While the debate was biased, I think that neither candidate actually came out on top of each other. Obama appeared more genuine (although he stuttered and stammered a lot), while Hillary was more fluent but appeared as artificial as astro-turf.
R&B - Not only do you miss the point, you regularly display the sort of nonsense and political naivete that your purport to be so angry about. Why all the name calling? If you don't like Senator Obama's policy positions (which is a bit ridiculous given their acknowledged similarity in position) then fine but all this personal bashing etc… merely diminishes you. While you may have had a legitimate beef in stating that the media hasn't more intensely questioned Senator Obama on his political issues (which again, I think are quite well articulated on his website, and he is getting much better at doing this on the mike) but that FARCE of a political debate doesn't support your position, simply says that now we won't discuss relevant issues at all.
And you, and your chosen candidate's experience argument is a crock and only the unlearned fall for it…..
Mamas Rice.. Its funny how you never comment on anything that is not supportive of Hillary but always comment on anything to do with Obama.
Why do Obama supporters send people to his website to know more about his policy, especially, policy that with directly affect middle-lower income people like myself.
I want to hear it from the horse's mouth. And when he does talk, he shows that he's not competent to fully defend himself, point after point. WHY? Because he doesn't know anything about it! In past debates, Edwards and Clinton know their stuff back and forth, while Obama is caught out there with no clue what to say next.
The media is, was and will be biased, depending on who owns & pays them. But there is something in our constituion clled Freedom of Speech, and once a person chooses to put themseleves in the public spotlight, such as running for president, they have the right to know. Is it fair? No. But Obama has gotten way too sweet a deal.
I predicted that the media will coddle Obama up until he is chosen as the Democratic candidate for the GE, to then be wiped out by McCain. This was a taste of what Obama will face. And the sad thing is, he has nothing to fall back on except charisma, which is not enough to win a presidential election.
Not Sold, I visit this site a couple of times a week, so I probably missed the posts you are referring to. Stereohyped is, for the most part, fairly unbiased but I haven't seen too many supportive posting on Hillary lately, other than the sexism/anti-Clintonism post of today which I did comment on.
Well all the polls show that Obama "won" the debate by about 3 to 1 the last time I checked!!!!!!
I believe HRC "suffers" from extraordinary serial lies, misrepresentations of her 'experience', the privilege of being white, extremely rich (in no small part from some shady dealings by her husband), and the actuality of some sexism. She tries but fails to hide her misanthropy, and she is a lazy legislator (who couldn't be bothered to read 90 pages of intelligence regarding Iraq). Words "don't matter" unless she speaks them. She is 'woman', while Obama is 'black man'. As the senator of my district, I don't believe she'd have a chance at re-election.
This world needs inspiration, not just this country. I hope Obama wins, and I hope those HRC hopefuls can manage to extend some of the decency and nobility Obama has demonstrated throughout his struggle against three opponents: HRC, Bill Clinton, and McCain. The "Obamanuts" and other expletives are issues of character. To me, she shows an astounding lack of it. Perhaps the shambles of her campaign, the stiffed vendors, and the proxy racisms are fine with her supporters. They are still ugly and unnecessary.