Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/images/E&P;_main_logo...
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues
By Greg Mitchell
Published: April 16, 2008 10:15 PM ET
NEW YORK 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.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.
Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end.
Yet David Brooks' review at The New York Times concluded: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gave ABC an "A."
But Tom Shales of The Washington Post had an opposite view: "Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political writer, declared in Salon, "Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon."
*
NOTE Greg Mitchell is author of the new book, "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway, and has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and many others. You can find it in stores or online at:
http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/...
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Hit on Focus on Minor Issues
By Greg Mitchell
Published: April 16, 2008 10:15 PM ET
NEW YORK 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.
Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on.
More time was spent on all of this than segments on getting out of Iraq and keeping people from losing their homes and other key issues. Gibson only got excited when he complained about anyone daring to raise taxes on his capital gains.
Yet neither candidate had the courage to ask the moderators to turn to those far more important issues. But some in the crowd did -- booing Gibson near the end.
Yet David Brooks' review at The New York Times concluded: "I thought the questions were excellent." He gave ABC an "A."
But Tom Shales of The Washington Post had an opposite view: "Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances." Walter Shapiro, the former USA Today political writer, declared in Salon, "Broadcast to a prime-time network audience on ABC and devoid of a single policy question during its opening 50 minutes, the debate easily could have convinced the uninitiated that American politics has all the substance of a Beavis and Butt-Head marathon."
*
NOTE Greg Mitchell is author of the new book, "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." It features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and a foreword by Joe Galloway, and has been hailed by Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and many others. You can find it in stores or online at:
http://www.amazon.com/So-Wrong-Long-Pundits-President-Failed/...
Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com)
Comments
Sort By:
Raves
|
Date
-
reply
Hey, I wonder if there is some way that Obama and his cronies can blame Hillary for all his ignorance? She is sure being used now as a buffer so that he vast knowledge on the economy, war and judgement won't be critiqued. -
How much do you think they would offer her to be the shadow president? You know the one that is knowledgeable but couldn't hold the office; you know the one that could do all the work while the prez goes out, smiles, runs his cons and licks up the adulation that is his due for existing.
-
They were only trivial to the Obama supporters, including New York Times and many other networks. This is so different from any other story because the US is in denial about Obama, including most of the networks.
They focused on his network ties, his racial beliefs, his cocky comments, and everything thing else. If he is an untrusted candidate, then there is really no reason to go into the other issues.
Who really cares about the other issues if this man is into terrorism? If he is, then his primary focus will be "taking down America"!
You think that we have issues now? Just make him Prez. you haven't seen anything!
Ours issues became non-issues when Obama became a candidate. If you cannot believe a word out of his mouth, then why bother listening to the other issues? Once I found out about the terrorism; all I heard from him was, blah blah blah! -
Some pretty good read:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://commentisfree.guardian...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wor...
Most Americans realize that the Swift Boat and Rovian tactics of 2004 by the ugly Americans had pushed Bush back into the White House to bring America its current ills. I don't think that the majority of this nation will again be tolerant to Swift Boat and Rovian tactics. Anyone who does resort to suck tactics will suffer a backfire. Hillary is too arrogant to notice that her kitchen sink tactics are backfiring on her. How can she hope to be America's President if such a high percentage of Americans don't even trust her.
Women should pray she doesn't get into the White House. If elected and her presidency should fail, she would be the first and the last female the American Public would ever want again for a President. Margaret Thatcher caused the British to mistrust having another female PM for UK. -
Are you saying that I, a woman, should fear that Hillary Clinton would fail at her duties as president? I don't think so. Now as to any imagined failure on her part would hurt the chances of any other woman getting elected as president. I don't think so. Now for instance: Bush is of the male gender, right? Will his complete failure as president now hinder a man becoming president in the fall. Yes, if your hypothesis is proven correct--Hillary will take office in January 2009.
Categories
