In Open Letter, Journalists Slam ABC Debate
| Fri Apr. 18, 2008 9:25 AM PDT
Below, an open letter from more than 40 journalists lamenting the petty, nearly substance-free debate ABC hosted on Wednesday night in Philadelphia.
We the undersigned deplore the conduct of ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson at the Democratic presidential debate on April 16. The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world. This is not the first Democratic or Republican presidential debate to emphasize gotcha questions over real discussion. However, it is, so far, the worst.
For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap-shot sound bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
The moderators' occasional later forays into substance were nearly as bad. Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe. Both candidates tried, repeatedly, to bring debate back to the real problems faced by ordinary Americans. Neither moderator allowed them to do this.
We're at a crucial moment in our country's history, facing war, a terrorism threat, recession, and a range of big domestic challenges. Large majorities of our fellow Americans tell pollsters they're deeply worried about the country's direction. In such a context, journalists moderating a debate—who are, after all, entrusted with free public airwaves—have a particular responsibility to push and engage the candidates in serious debate about these matters. Tough, probing questions on these issues clearly serve the public interest. Demands that candidates make pledges about a future no one can predict or excessive emphasis on tangential "character" issues do not. This applies to candidates of both parties.
Neither Mr. Gibson nor Mr. Stephanopoulos lived up to these responsibilities. In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public.
Spencer Ackerman, The
Washington Independent
Eric Alterman, City University of New York
Dean Baker, The American Prospect Online
Steven Benen, The Carpetbagger Report
Julie Bergman Sender, Balcony Films
Ari Berman, The Nation
Brian Beutler, The Media Consortium
Michael Bérubé, Crooked Timber, Penn. State University
Joel Bleifuss, In These
Times
Sam Boyd, The American Prospect
Lakshmi Chaudry, In These Times
Michael Cohen, The New America Foundation
Lark Corbeil, Public News Service
Brad DeLong, Brad DeLong's
Semi-Daily Journal and UC Berkeley
Adam Doster, In These Times
Kevin Drum, The Washington Monthly
Gerald Dworkin, UC Davis
Henry Farrell, Crooked Timber,George Washington University
James Galbraith, University of Texas at Austin
Todd Gitlin, Columbia University, TPM Cafe
Merrill Goozner (formerly Chicago Tribune)
Ilan Goldenberg, The National Security Network
Arthur Goldhammer, Harvard University
Robert Greenwald, Brave New
Films
Chris Hayes, The Nation
Don Hazen, Alternet
Michael Kazin, Georgetown University
Ed Kilgore, The Democratic Strategist
Charlie Kireker, Air America Media
Richard Kim, The Nation
Ezra Klein, The American Prospect
Mark Kleiman, The Reality Based Community, UCLA
Scott McLemee, Inside Higher Ed
Ari Melber, The Nation
Rick Perlstein, Campaign for America's Future
Katha Pollit, The Nation
David Roberts, Grist
Thomas Schaller, Columnist, The Baltimore Sun
Adele Stan, The Media Consortium
Jonathan Stein, Mother Jones Magazine
Rinku Sen, ColorLines Magazine
Matthew Shugart, UC San Diego
Mark Thoma, The Economist's View
Michael Tomasky, The
Guardian
Cenk Uygur, The Young
Turks
Tracy Van Slyke, The Media
Consortium
Kai Wright, The Root
Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic Monthly
Comments
You might as well tell prostitutes to stop having sex or hired assissins to stop killing.
The national media will never be fully responsible to anyone but their advertisers.
Stephanoupoulos, a Clintonite, and Charles Gibson, a Republican, joined forces to try to tar Obama. Not a debate, an am'Bush.'
Hey People,
How many of the "40" journalists do you think are democrat...?
The moderators asked questions that the American people demand answers to. You might consider them stupid questions, but they are basic to the character of the candidate.. I know that "character" isn't something that dem's worry about, but the rest of us do... dems showed that in how they defended slick willy clinton and his abuseing ways...
I don't think you understnad how middle America views what that skank did in the oval office.
Bill
Bill Nigh, did you get even a mediocre education> You simply make the case for importance of receiving and applying a proper education.
"abuseing"...."skank" It seems that the education system failed you.
And what real citizens care about are issues, not this pathetic attempt at pinning someone's guilt by association.
Let's ask McCain about the SNL scandal of the 80's and his involvement. Remember the term the "Keating 5". His wife "losing" records of his involvement and the preceding legislation McCain passed to help deregulate the banking industry. The bailouts and how the most connected politician is calling for campaign finance reform, one of his biggest issues, which is merely projection on his part.
So if your thinly veiled racism disguised as genuine interest in the character's associations.
I bet you were too busy checking out Bush's past and credentials before he was president to see the quality of his character....LOL!
To Bill Nigh:
WTF? Spoken like a true [deleted]. I'm a proud independent/recovering Republican, and I agree wholeheartedly with this letter. Let's see, "W" was s/elected largely on the basis of your all-important "character," and hmmm, where has that gotten us? That's a rhetorical question, numbnuts. Oh, and I'm certainly no fan of Bubbba, but even with all his "character" flaws, most objective observers consider his a highly successful Presidency. Maybe you should think twice before you start defending 'bush'-league media ploys as anything resembling true "debate" or even responsible journalism.
People, you must ignore Bill Nigh; he and his ilk haven't had an original or personally transformative thought in years. We can't afford to be distracted by hatemongers; the progressive movement is growing stronger. That is why the Bill Nighs are making more noise, like the groaning of a big ship being pulled to the bottom of the ocean.
The truth is that the Republican machine is on a decline or, more accurately, a headlong descent. As well it should be, as it has been an industry of lies, sound bites, and manipulation, serving the interest of a fiscally elite few at the expense of the overwhelming majority of Americans, conservative and progressive. We the people need to stay on point, not being mired down in arguments with idiots, and work to send messages to our representatives, demanding a focus on solving real economic, ecological and social problems.
We are theoretically represented not only by politicians, but by the media. They are lying when they say we care more about Reverend Wright than how we're going to put food on our tables or sustain our environment for the next generation. Who in their right mind is more worried about the ideology of someone who will never have sway in politics because he's already tagged as an extremist [Wright] when they could instead demand to know what their personal financial security is going to be? We are animals; we are wired to care about the hearth, the food at the table, the comfort of our loved ones. These are the things that were arbitrarily thrown out the window when ABC instead chose the tactics they did for the debate.
In conclusion, kudos to all who participated in this letter. ABC is a rag mag institution and needs a good whipping by other journalistic professionals. Hats off to you, Jonathan Stein, et al.
Submitted by capt - Hussein (not verified) on Fri Apr. 18, 2008 11:36 AM PDT.
Sadly we can expect more of the same crud. It has been a ratings bonanza. ABC is getting "bad" press but that is better than no press.
The "suits" love this stuff. If they can't find conflict in the campaigns they just fabricate it. Then everybody is on the teat of their infomercial BS again if just to see how bad it is.
"As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it."
Dick Cavett
Unfortunately the signers read like a who's who of Obama endorsers and left wing rags. They're correct, but having The Nation be your biggest name isn't going to make much of a splash. Little WaPo or NYT action would have helped.
Unfortunately the signers read like a who's who of Obama endorsers and left wing rags. They're correct, but having The Nation be your biggest name isn't going to make much of a splash. Little WaPo or NYT action would have helped.
=============================
Thank you Syseppo,
That is what i was trying to point out earlier..:-) When i read the list of "Journalists", i had to look twice..? I didn't see anyone who i would qualify as a primary media name. Unless you can get some big time hittters to sign-up, no one will pay attention. I am amazed that the progressive people are having such a hard time understanding that the questions that were asked, are what the common man would ask at a town hall meeting. Joe-six pack doesn't care what india or china or any third world country is doing, what they care about is the percieved character of the man who would be president, even if it is not true.
Maybe some progressive people need to hang out at the shooting range, or the nascar track this weekend, and find out what "The People" who will elect the next president, FEEL is important. And, STOP trying to make what YOU feel is important, instead, find out what is REALLY important to the 70% or normal American voters.
Come on people, i am trying to give you some imformation you can actuallly use, but will you..?
Bill
Submitted by disdaniel (not verified) on Fri Apr. 18, 2008 2:12 PM PDT.
"what they care about is the percieved character of the man who would be president, even if it is not true."
Huh??...why would anyone care about an untrue character?
Are you talking about fiction perhaps?
Bill Nigh is an idiot. He claims to having gone to college but one has to wonder considering his spelling, grammar and logic. He may well have gone to college but, like a first year medical student, only knows enough to be dangerous.
It's kind of ironic that he claims to know what 70% of the population thinks when I belong to that 70% of the population and think nothing like what he claims.
Bill, stop saying that your views are those of others. You can only claim that your opinion is yours and no one else's. Stop trying to burden me with your inadequacies.
PLEASE MA JONES => it's 2008... not very difficult to implement tiered comments and responses. I like to see what people think about the printed article... not what your latest 15 viewers spout when these lonely trolls push their buttons =) (ie Alternet)
Submitted by silverlucie (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 12:25 AM PDT.
One has to wonder why there aren't more well known journalists on this list....but then again, birds of a feather...NBC, CBS, CNN!!
To the numnutz who had the audacity to say those questions were imortant to "CHARACTER" and to US Americans. Speak for yourself. I guess you go around digging into peoples business. If you want to question his character...look at what he has done and not what other people around him have done. Or ask someone who has known him. There are PLENTY of people who know him well. Just look at how many believe in him. I don't recall them grilling Bush like this. Some of you people are so damn stupid it's not even worth it. Bigger than that, Americans can see through what those two clowns were trying to do. Obama is going to win anyway.
I agree that policy issues were not given sufficient air time. But if you re-read postings on this blog, you have to admit that "policies" are NOT the only reason people vote a certain way -- nor, for some people, the main reason they vote a certain way. If this were not so, Obama supporters would have been a lot more impatient with their candidate's tendency toward generalities and what is -- for detractors -- empty rhetoric.
Therefore, there is not only the negative side to those "other" questions, but also the possibility for voters to get a clearer reading on who the candidates are. Obama has lost American voters here in Europe due to the "Wright" question. In the debate, he had a chance to alter perceptions beneficially for himself, but he did not succeed. Had this been the 2004 race and a debate with George Bush, I shudder to think what kind of shape Obama would have been in with the unconvincing responses that he made.
Clinton got pinned down on Bosnia and she admitted her mistake without referring to the fact that all of the soldiers in that area were receiving combat pay because there were still problems. She also -- with a bit of prodding -- "endorsed" Obama as a potential "winner".
I don't think -- strictly speaking -- that such a question is "fair" when you consider that Obama is hugely outspending her in advertising. For the brief moment of that debate, when things were even and his fabulous campaign funds could not skew things, she was more or less made to say that she would back him.
So, the "other" questions may have been more pertinent than they seemed at first hearing and nobody can say that the "gotcha" questions were uniquely aimed at Obama.
Americans: Really know how to judge character...
Stephanopoulos Once Criticized The Tactics He Put To Use In Debate
"STEPHANOPOULOS: What he's (Bill Clinton) going to do in this campaign is focus on what's important to the American people, on the jobs and the education. That's what the American people care about. They want to move into the future. They don't want to be diverted by side issues, and they're not going to let the Republican attack machine divert them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/stephanopoulos-once-criti_n_973...
No, middle America DOES NOT CARE about these stupid character issues. The only reason people think we care is because the media TELLS US WE SHOULD CARE WHEN WE DON'T. Yes, I'm using all caps to get your attention, Bill Nigh.
I don't really care if my president is not the perfect citizen, since nobody is perfect last I checked. I didn't like that the last Clinton had an affair while in office, but it didn't effect the progress and the work he completed while president.
And as others have said, we voted in good ol' morally upright George W. Bush into office, and look what happened there. A candidate's personal beliefs DO NOT MATTER because they are not legislating their morals onto the masses. After all, the president can't get much done without Congress's support.
You know you're absolutely right, McCain was involved in those things and the people of the United States will judge him accordingly. Obama has had some shady dealings (Ayers, Wright), has now said some stupid things (guns and god) and his character has been brought into question. He didn't look too cool answering those questions... I wonder why? These are things that matter and an open letter from a list of left wing hacks really won't change that fact. They are just concerned that the cracks are starting to show in Barry's armor. Good going George and Charlie.
Lenn,
Please don't try to speak for all of middle america. You're forgetting about the large group known as fox news viewers. Not everyone thinks like you do. They spend most of their time tearing down their greatest enemy, the American Liberal. Character assassination is what they do best. Critical thinking is non-existent.
A rational person such as yourself must wish that this is not the case, but all the wishing in the world will not make it so.
Submitted by Tycity (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 12:45 PM PDT.
I applaud the journalists who signed this impressive and brave list. Those from CNN and ABC probably wouldn't have signed because of their "contracts" and fear of losing their jobs. Or corporate revenge tactics - who knows. It took great courage to do what these journalists did. The ones who wanted to but didn't should grow a pair and stand up to what they believe in, IMHO.
Open Letter, Journalists Who Slammed ABC:
You despicable hypocrites.
How many times have we seen the media on every level do this to conservatives?
Hundreds, no thousands of times.
Form harping on conservatives for using a legitimate alternate spelling for potato to situations exactly like this where the media plays 'gotcha' in numerous forums.
But never, ever is there any outrage from these 'pillars of truth' the undersigned.
Obama maligns a large segment of the US population and media
worshipers from coast to coast offer explanations and excuses. Bush believes the same thing about WMDs as every other leader in the free world and he is a liar. Obama is telling lies at a rate that makes Bill and Hillary look like beginners and them media covers for him every day.
I dare ya:
Just take a few minutes and read this
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/?page_id=15
And here is how he gets away with it....
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html
Your letter was neither honorable not brave. It was transparently biased and typical of the moral blindness of the left.
Submitted by Chrissy (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 7:13 PM PDT.
I do believe that character is a concern for voters in any election.
To all of the journalists who took the honorable and courageous stance to sign this open letter, you have my profound grattitude.
I'm too young to have personally witnessed the long-term decline in media standards that many people speak of. I can only speak for the rapid and profound changes that have taken place in the last 10 years.
After research into the challenges faced by journalists, my viewpoints have changed from one of cynicism towards those in the profession, to one of sympathy. Considerable forces are at work from the administration, and the corporations that own the media outlets. In such a climate, I imagine there is great pressure on every journalist who thinks against the grain.
These times hearken back to the challenges and risks taken by Edward Muro that I have only read about.
We need more Edward Muro's in our media. Your commitment to doing what is right for your profession, and us citizens, is a tremendous step in the right direction.
My sincere hope is that the terrible example presented in the ABC debate will be the kindling for a tremendous fire that will restore the integrity to journalism that I feel both the journalists and the people want.
Thank you for restoring some of my lost faith in U.S. journalism.
I think the majority people who "care" about the character questions posed in the debate are Republicans/conservatives who are already predisposed to thinking Clinton and Obama are detestable human beings. Most of the moderates, independents, and democrats/liberals that would vote or seriously consider voting for either of these candidates are much more concerned with their stances on the issues that we are facing.
"Joe six-pack" may care about these character questions, but since he is likely a conservative republican to begin with, I don't see how that holds any relevance to what this debate should be about.
Bill Nigh: I don't think you understnad how middle America views what that skank did in the oval office.
I don't think you understand how irrational it is for you to proclaim speaking on behalf of middle America.
If you did, surely you would refrain.
I agree with the person who says "Bring Back the League of Women Voters."
This is from Wikipedia:
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Boy, were the right!
Bill is Nigh,
Your thoughts are cliches, man. You stereotype the left just like most Republicans.
I have 4 guns, I drive a motorcycle, I worked for 20 years in factories ... and I don't think people give a shit about flag pins. They don't give a shit about Wright. They don't give a shit about being called bitter or unhappy.
Except maybe the stupid ones. In every factory there are guys who go to church and believe in magic. But they are the minority. Let's talk about why workers have no money, and why their plant moved, and why health care is so expensive. Those are the issues, not the crap fed by Stepehanopolous and Gibson, to upper class twits if there ever were any.
Yeah, 40 journalists. And not a single one of them that anyone has ever even heard of.
The debate highlighted the impotence of Obama as a debater, and it showed that he would be totally INEPT at negotiating with foreign leaders.
1. He was UNPREPARED. He should have STOCK ANSWERS on Wright, and on "bitterness".
2. He should have segwayed (sic) to other subjects. Why didn't he? Did he need permission from his mommy?
3. Rather than being a MAN, and admitting that he was unprepared and INEPT in the debate, he blames it all on the interviewers.
What a WIMP! What a Wuss! What a [DELETED]. What a crybaby.
What I find most annoying in all this ABC bashing, is the simple fact that Obama himself continues to offer NOTHING of substance.
At the ABC debates, precisely WHO was preventing Obama from airing his ideas about solving the problems of inflation? High oil prices? Outsourcing? Unemployment? Etc.
Did he think that someone would have thrown him off the show if he had simply said "I have already explained my relationship with Rev. Wright. But I would like to take this opportunity to explain how I would solve the critical problem of skyrocketing oil prices".
Would ABC have called the guards and thrown him off the show?
He showed no gonads. He showed no initiative. And those are CRITICAL characteristics for a President.
Would Stephanopolis have thrown him off the show if he had said the following (a dandy line): "I do not wear a lapel pin because I believe that the ONLY people who should wear American Flag lapel pins are those people who have actually FOUGHT in combat. But that reminds me, I would like to further explain why I am so opposed to the War in Iraq ....etc.".
In short, who was STOPPING Obama from discussing issues?
It reminds me of "The Matrix". Remember when they are fighting, and Fishbine (sic) says "why are you hesitating...".
Nobody was FORCING Obama to stay with the script. Nobody was forcing Obama to only discuss stupid sound bite subjects. He should have segwayed (sic) to the issues that are importatn to him.
THAT is what an experienced politician will do. Even "dummy" Bush. In 2004, he would essentially IGNORE every question and then go ON MESSAGE.
Obama showed that he is INEXPERIENCED. Sorry about that, but it's true. Obama is an AMATEUR.
I think that what this is REALLY about is that the Obama Mafia wants to make it perfectly clear that ANY interviewer who asks Obama HARD questions is going to be bashed, and bashed, and bashed some more by Obama's little mini-Nazi Party.
These 40 journalists would be scared shirtless, if they had any brains in their pretty little heads.
Anyone remember Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
Food
Clothing
Shelter...
Until people have these needs met (addressed), other priorities are secondary. We now find there is a food and energy crisis resulting in increased food prices. We have a home foreclosures forcing many out of their homes. Who among you truly believes the people care more about who wears a lapel pin than the issues that most directly affect us? Let's have substance in our reporting and in our dialog.
I don't agree one bit with your logic or your conclusions, but I'll not call you things like 'idiot', or point out your poor spelling or other obvious inadequacies. This is AMERICA, where we all have the right to express our opinions. I WOULD like to point out, however, that you are referring to something that happened over 8 years ago, and neatly ignoring the atrocities that have been carried out by the anti-christ and his constitution/bill-of-rights/free speech shredding hoard of demons since then.
Gee, I hope you're not the 'Science Guy' Bill Nigh.
Submitted by ogreteam (not verified) on Tue Jan. 13, 2009 10:09 PM PST.
nice article very informative.
