As one with some (long-past) interscholastic debate experience I'll say that these things - going all the way back to JFK/RMN have never been real
debates in the formal academic sense. However, I believe it should be criminal to call the most recent commercial-packed, emotion-laden, substantively appalling events
debates.
I recall when the likes of PBS's Jim Lehrer came under fire for leaning a little too far this way or that, not asking the right follow-up or allowing a speaker to exceed a time limit. But hell - Lehrer looks like a saint by today's standards. And the candidates are not
victims here. They play along, I suppose for the intense media exposure received in return.
Any type of fair debate would demand (1) that candidates answer questions put to them, (2) that they receive relatively equal amounts of speaking time, and (3) that candidates and moderators interact with one another with at least a modicum of respect and civility.
OK, I know. That "civility" stuff doesn't sell well on TV nowadays. But couldn't we at least try? This
is the most powerful office on earth - perhaps wielding more power than any single mortal should be entrusted with. And to reduce the electoral competition to a jaded reality show - replete with insults, lies, recriminations and canned punch-lines does nothing to advance our well being.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/rnc-suspends-partnership-with-nbc-in-fallout-over-chaotic-cnbc-debate/
Comments
Your critique of the "debates" (all of them) is on the mark. Unfortunately, the networks are playing these debates for ratings, not newsworthiness, and the candidates all have their own agendas, the least of which is to be informative. "Herding cats" is what comes to my mind.
The last debate was so bad that I turned it off before the end, and I'm somewhat of a junkie for this stuff.
(I had Lehrer's name misspelled too)
weak:
https://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/cnn-host-smacks-down-gop-debate-whining-cnbc-asked-the-same-questions-as-fox-news/
stronger:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/10/29/cnbc-is-getting-hammered-because-its-not-fox-news/
The latter is pretty funny, actually.
CNBC are a bunch of Jokers. RNC should be the makeup guys for those Jokers. A circus where everyone is a Joker.
The main trio of CNBC questioners (Quintanilla, Quick, Harwood) seemed to be relentlessy asking questions less about substantive policy points, and instead about the "horse-race" -- trying to incite the candidates, rather than to inform the electorate. Basically, the trio was going for "gotchas" almost exclusively.
The questions asked, I would expect from (hostile) partisans, not journalists. This was MOST true of Harwood, less so for Quintanilla. Quick seemed to just not be comfortable/adequate for the venue. If the snarky questions were not intentionally partisan, the trio must be deemed (at best) sloppy, amateur journalists. But then that latter description cannot be applied to Harwood. He is a professional --- but he was there with a transparently partisan (not journalistic) agenda.
Towards the end, Quintanilla's question about electronic sports-betting was emblematic of the vapid questions.
The unequal amount of time/questions directed to the candidates was shocking. I seem to recall that Paul only was tossed 2 questions. The CNBC questioners seemed to want to minimize Fiorina's and Christie's involvement, though both admirably fought for more time, as did Kasich.
Bf and I are boycotting NBC and CNBC. MSNBC? Well....;) I liked Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla...never suspected bias from them on the daily broadcast (unlike Harwood), so their marching orders for the debate most likely came from the top....ie, snark or get fired. At least MSNBC is upfront about their bias.
I am hyper-sensitive about this stuff, though...I stopped watching "The Good Wife" because of the "subtle" digs at conservatives. Bf still watches it, though.
I think the whole thing is hilarious. Apparently the audience even got tired of it and started booing after one of Carl's questions. It was a combination of agenda and pure stupidity - asking questions about fantasy football betting? Asking Trump if his was a "Comic book version of a presidential campaign?" I mean, in what world is that professional or acceptable in a presidential debate? I've never seen a presidential debate where the entire group of candidates felt that they needed to mount a defense against the moderators.
Honestly, CNBC should be embarrassed for the unbelievably poor questions, which had such a lack of focus on issues people care about.
It's not about left wing or right wing. If the situation was reversed and CNBC pulled that garbage for a democratic debate and they had the same response, I'd say it was justified.
Colbert summarizes the whole thing well:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/politics/republican-debate-media/index.html
What "serious" conversation took place in the RNC debate on Fox News? The questions in that debate were serious?
There are many debates to come. These are mostly sideshows especially when you still have so many candidates. Get the list down the 3-4 and then worry about serious conversations.
CNBC at best is bipartisan, certainly not right wing. Let's just agree to disagree on this one. CNBC is a bunch of incompetent shills. They had Cramer come and ask questions for god's sake!!! Harwood was dumb, and whatever else. Because you make a mistake does not make you right winger. They are all objectivists and he was trying to up his stock that's all, and failed against Rubio.
Like I keep saying, we keep doing unnecessary ANALysis.
Love the misrepresentation of the actual questions.