« Corporate Vs. Family Media | Main | Who’s Barking Now? »
May 6, 2007
The Republican Debates
Neil Derrough, former president of the CBS Television Station Division, writes:
"I am somewhat surprised that I haven’t heard much of an outcry about the so-called Republican debate on MSNBC the other night. Most media organizations have been pretty quiet about it. A fuss should be made.
At this point, I’m not so much concerned about what was said by the candidates. However, I do have some real concerns about the format design and the role of the moderators. First, the annoying trivia oriented questions were just foolish. Because there were no established ground rules about the questioning, it was left it up to the moderators to use their judgment. Their judgment, I strongly believe, was tainted by a partisan point of view. I submit no fair-minded journalist could come away from this exhibition and feel that there had been an evenhanded and thoughtful discussion of the important issues that confront us. Time constraints for sure, but still no excuse.
Every effort should be made to keep the debate process as free of political slant as possible. To do anything else contaminates the process. To hand over the moderator job to cable columnist that has a clear political point of view, jeopardizes any real sense of fairness.
These first debates are much like the NFL exhibition season, a lot of people getting ready for the real season. Let’s hope so, because the audience will grow in size and interest. They deserve a far more serious and professional effort in the future."
I agree, of course, and Neil has written better than I could have. The main-stream-media has been quiet about the travesty of the Republican debates, but the blogsphere has not. I read one blog that said of Chris Matthews, the obnoxious, constantly interrupting moderator, that he asked reasonably intelligent questions but never let anyone answer them.
Matthews, like most self-absorbed, ego-centered media personalities, believed the events were about him, that he was the center of the universe, that the focus should be on him, not the debaters or the guests on his MSNBC program. The media is to be blamed, of course, for creating the talk-show format that attracts these attention-craving personalities. The personalities do what they are hired and have a compulsion to do--talk. As the format requires, they talk instead of listening. Perhaps the media would get more intelligent programs and less neurotic hosts if they called the programs listen shows.
Posted by Charles Warner at May 6, 2007 1:42 PM
Comments
Bruce Braun ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mediacurmudgeon.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 7, 2007 3:16 PM writes:
Neil & Nick make great points. In fact, on "Face the Nation" yesterday, Newt Gingrich suggested what Nick does. Get rid of the "moderators" and let these folks who think they should be the next leader of the free world, go one-on-one for 90 minutes.
I recall a "Frontline," from the days of the Reagan-Gorbachev summits. What sticks out in my mind was how CBS, ABC & NBC used graphics in the promotional spots to make their news anchors and respective coverage larger than the two presidents. We all know that star billing is everything in the entertainment business, i.e. the star's name is elevated above and in a larger font than anyone else. It was quite amazing to see the not-so-subtle ego and arrogance placing Rather, Brokaw and Jennings head shots above those of the two most powerful men in the world at that time.
I'll give the Republican candidates credit on this debate. They took their pleadings right into the middle of the "enemy" media camp with Matthews and MSNBC. Everyone who watches Matthews knows that he is another version of a Don Imus...the show is all about him, first and the guests second. At the same time the Democrats wimped out by boycotting the Fox offering. "Too right-wing, biased etc." What were they afraid of? What about taking the fight right to the enemy?
Curious, though was Hillary not having any trouble last year participating in a fund raiser Rupert threw for her. Funny, I don't recall reading anywhere that any of the Democratic candidates have turned down campaign fund raisers or contributions supplied by Rupert's senior management. Most of whom, are all big Democratic Party supporters.
Media Curmudgeon at May 7, 2007 2:35 PM writes:
Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and author, Nick Kotz writes:
"Derrough makes good points. There is no ideal format--or even a good one. The best--or least objectionable--I've seen are with Jim Lehrer alone asking the questions. We could do worse than debates in which the candidates question each other. That format has obvious drawbacks but might force the candidates to act like human beings rather than issues debaters."
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)Printer-Friendly