The debate, especially ABC's handling of it, raises issues that are important to us in COMM 317. Do political candidates compete in a "marketplace of ideas?" Do news media (ABC included) have a responsibity to help them get their message to the American people? Can the news media bear that responsibility if they aren't objective? If so, how? What responsiblity do the candidates bear? How well did ABC do? How did the candidates do?
By the way, have you noticed how this concept of the marketplace of ideas bridges the two big issues we have covered in COMM 317 -- law and ethics?
Micahel Tomsky, editor of Guardian America (affiliated with the center-left British newspaper The Guardian), said the debate "was a travesty. He ventured an explanation:
I have a hunch that there was massive corporate pressure to produce fireworks. Usually, these debates are on cable television, where viewership is smaller and ad rates lower. Last night's, though, was on network TV, where millions more dollars are at stake. As nearly as I can tell, last night's debate pre-empted Pushing Daisies and Private Practice. I have no idea how these shows usually do, but assuming they typically draw even five or six million viewers, the suits were probably sweating bullets about putting politics on during network primetime. I'd bet that memos went from the entertainment to the news division pressing the point in clear terms.Also in The Guardian, blogging columnist (and blogger) Richard Adams links to several left-wing blogs under a head that sums up reaction: "Worst. Debate. Ever." USA Today has links to more reviews on newspaper websites and in the blogosphere.
Four out of five American adults think the country is a train wreck. Allowing for the fact that probably one in five is a committed right-winger, that means virtually every remaining sentient adult in the country is deeply worried about what's happening to America. And in this context we get lapel pins?
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Daily News, wrote open letter to the debate moderators. Money graf:
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.It's worth reading in full. The Daily News endorsed Obama today, and Bunch's political preferences are in full view, but I'm more interested -- as always -- in what he says about journalism as a profession.
You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. ...
Greg Mitchell, who writes a column for Editor & Publisher (the trade magazine for newspaper management types), had a -- politically -- balanced appraisal: "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." You'll notice I said "politically" balanced. Might it be significant that E&P has been bashing television news for years?
Andrew Sullivan, a liberal blogger for Atlantic monthly, fired rockets as he live-blogged the debate. (Read live-blogs from bottom to top.) Sullivan wears his opinions on his sleeve, but his take is interesting.
On the other hand, the conservative opinion magazine National Review had a balanced, judicious appraisal suggesting that: (1) the effect of the debate was negligable; and (2) the issues raised, however trivial, were those that will be argued in the November election.
And David Brooks, New York Times op-ed columnist, made much the same point ... quoted here in a roundup of reaction stories on The Times' blog "The Caucus" ... Brooks said, "The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities." And that the moderators did.
Howard Kurtz, who covers the media for The Washington Post, has summaries of coverage, quotes and links on today's website. Tom Shales, who writes for the paper's Style section, shoots rockets at ABC in a column headed "In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC." Shales' sum-up: "To this observer, ABC's coverage seemed slanted against Obama." It's also worth reading, for a journalist's comments on how the TV visuals were put together in an imbalanced and unobjective way, e.g. cutaways to Chelsea Clinton in the audience that weren't balanced by shots of Obama supporters. These things may be inadvertent. (Chelsea is a celeb, and Bruce Springsteen presumably wasn't in the audience. If he had been, surely the cameras would have cut away to him, too.) It's a small point, but these things add up. And they don't project an image of impartiality.
No comments:
Post a Comment