Democrats need their own "hit man" on biased debate moderators
No, not literally. Moving on from that, The Daily Howler had a good one yesterday comparing the way NBC’s moderators (Brian Williams and Chris Matthews, respectively) handled the first Democratic and Republican debates. Look at these opening questions, and then make a plausible argument that NBC is not working in lockstep with what Jack Welch wants – with Keith Olbermann as the token that proves the rule.
Remember, this is the network that fired Phil Donahue for being too liberal despite solid ratings, and acclaimed 9-11-Afghanistan-Iraq reporter Ashleigh Banfield because she dared to give a speech at a university graduation criticizing media coverage of the war. And then there’s bulldog Tim Russert, the Vice President’s favorite stooge for assured “message control,” as we found out in the Libby trial. NBC is no more legit as a news channel than ABC, and barely more than Fox. The Daily Howler in recent years has drawn out the “Nantucket connection” of the big NBC people – Russert, Matthews, David Gregory, the NBC President -- with Robert Welch himself, and shown some fairly compelling evidence that Welch “put in a call” to stop any praise of Gore on NBC after the first debate.
The Democratic field needs someone to step up and take one – not for the Gipper, obviously, since the Republicans do more than push us to the gag reflex in pandering to that sentiment, but for the Democratic Party and the American people. They need someone willing to expose these allegedly-neutral moderators, with hard and challenging responses that identify them as the self-important shills they are. Brian Williams should have been challenged from the get-go: “What the hell kind of loaded question is that? Are you a journalist or a shill for the Republican Party? I thought you worked for a major network, not a propaganda organ like Fox News.” (OK, perhaps the last part is gratuitous.) Of course, the profession will circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. The Broders, Cohens, Hiatts, Russerts and even the Stephanopoulases (ex-Clinton) will counter-attack viciously, but Democrats cannot keep running scared from what they fear the media will do to them if they fight back. Somebody needs to shine a light on this, and hope that if it’s finally brought out into the open, the American people will respond in ways that force the American media back to being the “liberal media” – i.e., even-handed.
A perfect example of this insidious and damaging pro-Republican bias showed up in the Kerry-Bush debates, and, along with the usual suspects like tardiness and weakness in challenging the Swiftboat attacks, it might have cost Kerry a chance to win enough votes. George Bush made the absurd statement that most of his tax cuts went to the middle class tax. Kerry had drawn Bush’s fundamental stupidity out in the open, and was ready to pounce immediately with what could have been a devastating blow. It would have, at the same time, starkly demonstrated Bush to be a serial liar who will say anything, as well as the huge practical consequences for middle class people – that is, 95 per cent of Americans as they perceive themselves -- that a Kerry vs. a Bush Presidency would mean.
It was totally obvious that the moderator, Bob Schieffer, a Texan reported to be close to the Bush family, knew perfectly well that Kerry was about to deliver a major blow to Bush. Inexplicably, he suddenly shifted from his usual practice of allowing responses when the candidate especially wanted to make a specific point regardless of the formal rules, and cut Kerry off and said he was moving to a new topic. There was no way to look at the situation and not conclude that Schieffer was deliberately protecting Bush.
It’s easy to say as a Monday morning quarterback what Kerry should have done, but if he had been prepared for the need to watch what Schieffer was doing very carefully, and to push him down if necessary, Kerry should have interjected, “Excuse me, Bob, but we are not moving on until I respond to Mr. Bush’s ridiculous statement that his tax cuts mostly went to the middle class. This contrast is too important for the American people to see very, very clearly.” As it was, Kerry later had to say he was “going back” to the issue before answering the later question at hand, and it deflated the moment completely. Given Schieffer’s background with the Bush family, I always wondered why Kerry’s campaign agreed to him as a moderator, but if it was necessary for various reasons, there should have been better preparation for keeping Schieffer himself on a tight leash.
We need to work the refs hard. Somebody’s got to be willing to take the technical the refs’ friends will issue to start changing the momentum.
BRIAN WILLIAMS, OPENING QUESTION (4/26/07): Senator Clinton, your party's leader in the United States Senate, Harry Reid, recently said the war in Iraq is lost. A letter to today's USA Today calls his comments "treasonous" and says if General Patton were alive today, Patton would wipe his boots with Senator Reid. Do you agree with the position of your leader in the Senate?
CHRIS MATTHEWS, OPENING QUESTION (5/3/07): In the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll, just 22 percent believe this country is on the right track. Mayor Giuliani, how do we get back to Ronald Reagan's morning in America?
Remember, this is the network that fired Phil Donahue for being too liberal despite solid ratings, and acclaimed 9-11-Afghanistan-Iraq reporter Ashleigh Banfield because she dared to give a speech at a university graduation criticizing media coverage of the war. And then there’s bulldog Tim Russert, the Vice President’s favorite stooge for assured “message control,” as we found out in the Libby trial. NBC is no more legit as a news channel than ABC, and barely more than Fox. The Daily Howler in recent years has drawn out the “Nantucket connection” of the big NBC people – Russert, Matthews, David Gregory, the NBC President -- with Robert Welch himself, and shown some fairly compelling evidence that Welch “put in a call” to stop any praise of Gore on NBC after the first debate.
The Democratic field needs someone to step up and take one – not for the Gipper, obviously, since the Republicans do more than push us to the gag reflex in pandering to that sentiment, but for the Democratic Party and the American people. They need someone willing to expose these allegedly-neutral moderators, with hard and challenging responses that identify them as the self-important shills they are. Brian Williams should have been challenged from the get-go: “What the hell kind of loaded question is that? Are you a journalist or a shill for the Republican Party? I thought you worked for a major network, not a propaganda organ like Fox News.” (OK, perhaps the last part is gratuitous.) Of course, the profession will circle the wagons in defense of one of their own. The Broders, Cohens, Hiatts, Russerts and even the Stephanopoulases (ex-Clinton) will counter-attack viciously, but Democrats cannot keep running scared from what they fear the media will do to them if they fight back. Somebody needs to shine a light on this, and hope that if it’s finally brought out into the open, the American people will respond in ways that force the American media back to being the “liberal media” – i.e., even-handed.
A perfect example of this insidious and damaging pro-Republican bias showed up in the Kerry-Bush debates, and, along with the usual suspects like tardiness and weakness in challenging the Swiftboat attacks, it might have cost Kerry a chance to win enough votes. George Bush made the absurd statement that most of his tax cuts went to the middle class tax. Kerry had drawn Bush’s fundamental stupidity out in the open, and was ready to pounce immediately with what could have been a devastating blow. It would have, at the same time, starkly demonstrated Bush to be a serial liar who will say anything, as well as the huge practical consequences for middle class people – that is, 95 per cent of Americans as they perceive themselves -- that a Kerry vs. a Bush Presidency would mean.
It was totally obvious that the moderator, Bob Schieffer, a Texan reported to be close to the Bush family, knew perfectly well that Kerry was about to deliver a major blow to Bush. Inexplicably, he suddenly shifted from his usual practice of allowing responses when the candidate especially wanted to make a specific point regardless of the formal rules, and cut Kerry off and said he was moving to a new topic. There was no way to look at the situation and not conclude that Schieffer was deliberately protecting Bush.
It’s easy to say as a Monday morning quarterback what Kerry should have done, but if he had been prepared for the need to watch what Schieffer was doing very carefully, and to push him down if necessary, Kerry should have interjected, “Excuse me, Bob, but we are not moving on until I respond to Mr. Bush’s ridiculous statement that his tax cuts mostly went to the middle class. This contrast is too important for the American people to see very, very clearly.” As it was, Kerry later had to say he was “going back” to the issue before answering the later question at hand, and it deflated the moment completely. Given Schieffer’s background with the Bush family, I always wondered why Kerry’s campaign agreed to him as a moderator, but if it was necessary for various reasons, there should have been better preparation for keeping Schieffer himself on a tight leash.
We need to work the refs hard. Somebody’s got to be willing to take the technical the refs’ friends will issue to start changing the momentum.
posted by KISSWeb | 3:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home