I’ve been critical of Barack Obama the last few days, but this time I can understand his exasperation with the debate run by ABC the other night. See this TV critic’s evisceration of the way ABC handled it:In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC.
Many conservatives, though, are crowing at how badly Obama did and how liberals are being so indignant about ABC.
But on one issue, surely all can agree that ABC blew it: The main questioner was George Stephanopoulos , a former Clinton staffer!
How is it possible that a major network with an actual newsroom would be so blind to such an obvious conflict of interest? The lowliest intern should have been able to catch that howler.
I think the networks have gotten lulled into this over the years, because they are so used to moving democratic staffers from the political world into their newsrooms. Tim Russert was a Moynihan staffer who is also a news room guy (as opposed to a political commentator). In the older days, it was Pierre Salinger, who came straight out of the Kennedy administration into a role as a news correspondent on ABC.
It struck me odd a number of years ago when Stephanopolis was made the ABC Sunday morning show anchor, practically straight out of the Clinton administration, even though the Clintons were still pulling the levers of power in the democrat party. But this was a step beyond all of that — how he could agree to moderate a debate in which Hillary is a participant, and how ABC could have approved such an arrangement is amazing. Even more amazing — why did Obama’s campaign agree to it? That’s a demonstrated incompetence which almost makes you think he deserves what he got.
But why would liberals complain about the liberal media’s coverage of them? They’re in cahoots! The liberal media only says good things about liberals! …
Well, at least I now know how Michelle Malkin ranks two of the things she most despises: she would rather cheer for the MSM than vindicate a Democratic candidate. She’d rather have the Dems look bad than hear anything of substance about policy from the media. Ultimately, Michelle will get her way, and the media will continue to play these ridiculous games to entertain us. Though I doubt she’ll take the media’s side when the media turns its attention back to Republicans for another round of “gotcha” or “my strawman: agree or disagree right now”.
Also: Stephanopoulos.
no doubt obama did poorly. and he reminded me (cringingly) that is is a redistributionist with his comments on the capital gains tax. He looked tired. On the other hand he did not return Clinton´s jabs with ones of his own. I appreciated that.
Clinton showed just how low she was willing to sink to try to win the election. Her mention of the weathermen was exceptionally amazing in view of the fact that her husband pardoned two of them. I am a democrat. I was kinda depressed therefore to see some of the tactics she deployed…
and it was 45 minutes before the moderators got to anything that looked like substance.
Frank, how do you define substance? Do you mean that all of the concerns about Obama’s prior statements, associates, mentors should have been simply ignored in favor of a two hour wonky discussion of “policy”? To me, substance is a man’s character, the friends and associates he chooses, the mentors he selects, and things he’s said in the past which require further explanation, either because they are controversial or inconsistent with things he is saying now. The specific policies a candidate promotes on the campaign trail are not that revealing because they tend to hew the party line and are measured against innumerable polls to determine their popularity with the voters. The chances any of them will ever become law are next to nil. Trash bins across the land are filled with the policy papers of presidential candidates.
To the contrary, I think the first 45 minutes of the debate were most revealing and the remainder was a useless bore. We know a lot more about Obama now than we did a few weeks ago, and the country is immeasurably better off for its newfound knowledge.
Don S (@5), “We know a lot more about Obama now than we did a few weeks ago”? Indeed. Why, did you know that Obama was associated with a man named Jeremiah Wright? Why, I’ve never heard of the man! Did you know that Obama called some people “bitter” — and that this caused controversy? I’d never heard word one about the matter! And did you know Obama doesn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel? This was the first I’d heard of it! I thank the good people at ABC for being the first media outlet to tell me about any of this, and now I feel I know all I need to know to vote in November (presuming, of course, that John McCain has not accused anyone of being bitter, doesn’t know anyone named Jeremiah Wright, and most importantly, does wear a flag pin).
Ahem. Don, while you might find discussions of policy “wonky”, I find it fascinating that, whether or not his policy ideas are implemented, you could care less what a politician thinks about his future job’s actual duties.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you don’t work in a hiring capacity. Because when I’ve been interviewed for a job, I was typically asked about my capabilities with regard to the job requirements, my past performance in similar situations, and my thoughts about what I would do if I was hired. In all my years, no one has actually asked for the references that are “available upon request”, much less asked me who my friends are. And they certainly haven’t grilled me on slip-ups I have made in public that have little to no bearing on that job’s responsibility.
Meanwhile, while you claim to know more about Obama than you did weeks ago, you still apparently don’t know much about what he thinks should be done with regard to health care. You labeled his plan as “nationalization” in a different thread. It is, in a word, not. Perhaps you “learned” all you wanted to know, but I’m going to guess that you did not learn anything you didn’t already know.
And henceforth, I’d better not catch you discussing policy around here with respect to other candidates. If it doesn’t come from O’Reilly’s or Olbermann’s mouth, it’s not worth talking about.
How we bleed for our own oxen, when they are the ones being gored.
Sounded like the sort of questions usually asked of Repulicans.
I was pretty jazzed by those questions. Not so much by the answers.
Obama’s controversial comment was not calling people bitter so much as claiming they cling to religion, guns, and their prejudices against people who aren’t like them.
Bitter we can handle; even admit to. Being called a bigot, though–well, them’s fightin’ words.
Susan, I’m not sure that metaphor (@7) works, but I get your point. Sure. And, I would add, how we enjoy watching those we disagree with made to squirm.
But don’t tell me you’re going to defend the media now, too! Much as you and I may not agree about the singular liberal bias of the media (or lack thereof), I have always thought that our media far too often foolishly thinks its job is to entertain us, not inform us. And that it plays stupid games in an attempt to win viewers and fill its 24-hour news cycle.
I can’t remember any of the ridiculous questions asked at the Republican debates now, but I’m certain they were there. Our media — and here I’m largely looking at the cable news networks — have largely abdicated their responsibility to inform the people, and in so doing harm our country. Are you really going to disagree with that just because the media’s attention is — for now — focused on the Democrats?
No I heartily agree! Precisely why I ignore most mainstream media in following the news. Don’t ask me how we find things out these days, but it’s not from newspapers or network news.
And I agree media plays stupid games. I’m just not certain their questions in the earliest part of this debate was gane-playing.
They are in fact questions I’d have asked of Obama, particularly,because I think they’re relevant.
I’m an independent. I increasingly care less for Hilary and every time John McCain releases a new “plan” I sigh in frustration.
So I tuned into the debate, looking forward to hearing what just 2 candidate had to say.
I don’t appreciate that the first hour was devoted to stupid questions. No offense, but I don’t give a damn about old hippie terrorists, flag pins, bittergate or how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
I’m terribly concerned about the economy. About how much it is costing me to fill up my gas tank. About how long and how much more money we’re going to be spending in Iraq.
I don’t care about Rev. Wright either.
You guys who spend your whole lives watching flickering screens and tapping furiously on keyboards, talking about crazy ****, you can care about irrelevant issues. But at the end of the day, I’m tired and want to know what candidate is going to help this nation become great again.
This bitterness isn’t because there were tough questions. It’s because the tough questions were about matters that are irrelevant and the fact that irrelevant issues got more time than pressing matters is an insult to my intelligence. It suggests that as a voter, I will vote based not on a policy position or previous voting record, but rather on if someone wears a flag pin or not.
As ABC likes to say, “Give me a BREAK!”
tODD, the contention is that the ABC questioners were pro-Clinton. She and Obama are both liberal, I think everyone including those two, would agree. Here the media, while still being liberal, is displaying its bias against one of the two liberal candidates.
Conservatives, used to this sort of thing against themselves, seem to be indulging in a little schadenfreude in hearing liberals complain against media bias, now that they see it against one of their own.
Forgive Me If I Sound Rude, welcome, thanks for your comment, and forgiveness abounds on this blog. But just for future reference: We don’t use bad language here. Forgive me if I sound rude, but that’s a community standard.
You are forgiven, but you are not allowed to tell me what issues are important to me. The fact that Obama wants to run on little other than his supposed ability to unite the nation across racial and political lines makes his association with unrepentant domestic terrorists and racists pastors relevant.
I was very happy to see Gibson actually force Obama to try to explain how raising the capital gains tax would help the economy or generate additional gov’t revenue.
What Joe said. I can decide for myself what’s relevant and what’s an issue.
Amen.
And taxes need simplification, not more politicization.
It’s not good when a candidate treats taxes as a means of sticking it to somebody–anybody. Where do you suppose he learned that economics lesson?
tODD @ #6:
1. I knew all those things, but those who only watch and listen to MSM didn’t. Until recently, MSM has completely whitewashed Obama’s past. As a country we needed to move past the “Obama is a Messiah” complex. Once everyone understands Obama’s motivations and personal history, just as they already understand those of the other two candidates — then we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion of the issues, rather than just repeating the mantra “change” and swooning. That is why the first part of the debate was the most important part.
By the way, as Susan mentioned above, if you think all Obama said was people are bitter, you missed the point. He actually said that, because they are bitter, they cling to their religion and guns. A very different point indeed.
2. As I think I explained adequately in my previous post, policy is important. However, the specific policy positions taken by presidential candidates are not. They are designed for positive polling responses by important voter groups and lobbies, and seldom bear much resemblance at all to actual policies promoted by the candidate once he has gained office. For this reason, I find a candidate’s mindset, philosophy, life history, faith, etc. much more interesting than particular policy positions their campaign staff espouses.
3. I am indeed responsible for hiring people. We indeed do check references, and not just the ones the candidate for the position wants us to check with. Background checks of employees are vitally important because resumes are typically “enhanced”.
4. I don’t know much about the specifics of the Obama health care plan. I don’t care much about it. I know that it will involve a lot more government intervention than I would prefer, as well as mandates as to coverage and other things which will greatly drive up health care costs, reduce choice, and result in increasingly rationed care. Since I will not be voting for either Clinton or Obama, I have no reason to research their respective positions on this or any other issue (not that they would differ in any way meaningful to me).
Dr. Veith, you said (@11) that “the media, while still being liberal, is displaying its bias against one of the two liberal candidates.”
Let’s see if I got this straight. The liberal media decided to ask foolish questions of its two beloved liberal candidates, which ended up making both of them look bad. (If you think Clinton was not asked pointless questions that made her look bad, feel free to review the transcript.) And the liberal candidate it decided to make look worse was the one who is almost certainly the more liberal of the two. I don’t get it. Nor do I understand why I’m suddenly in the minority when it comes to decrying the media. Gosh, what happened?
“Conservatives … seem to be indulging in a little schadenfreude in hearing liberals complain against media bias, now that they see it against one of their own.” “Now” that liberals see it happening to “one of their own”? “Now” that it’s happening to liberals?! Did I dream up the Clinton administration? Did I dream up the Gore candidacy? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
And as for everyone who is so boldly blazing their own path and deciding what issues are important for themselves, how does it happen that those issues so dear to your heart mirror those given time in our now highly informational media? The media reports on a quote, the media trumps it into a major part of its news cycle, the media reports about how other media are reporting on this “controversy”, the media covers the coverage of this controversy, and then you decide “yes, this controversy is important — I wonder if John McCain wears a flag pin to bed, or if he only loves his country when he’s awake.” If this is what America bases its vote on, then complaints about our horrible politicians have been wholly misplaced — we’ve gotten the exact politicians we deserved.
‘And as for everyone who is so boldly blazing their own path and deciding what issues are important for themselves…’
Again, like Joe said, I claim my right to decide what issues are important, and what constitutes an issue; more than it’s ABC’s, NBC’s, FoxNews’, etc.’s right.
‘…how does it happen that those issues so dear to your heart mirror those given time in our now highly informational media?’
I’d say it’s the other way around, and it’s about time the media’s curiosity reflected my own!
If you think that’s a media-contrived story, think again. They haven’t begun to really cover Rev. Wright and Obama’s association and longstanding, documented admiration of the man, his ministry and theology; most all they talk about are those video clips, as if they were rare and isolated moments, and not evidence of the man’s entire theological frame of reference (which they are). Mrs. Obama has been more revealing on the campaign trail of what liberation theology means to her, and what she thinks of America, and Obama hasn’t silenced her, near as I can tell. (Which is sort of Clintonian of him, I think, to let his wife say more of the tuff stuff while he sings of hope.)
Not saying all the questions were brilliant. The flag stuff…oh well. But I don’t remember seeing anyone demand flag-wearing or even flag-waving around here, though, so let’s burn that straw dog.
I’m sorry, Don S, but to claim (@14) that “those who only watch and listen to MSM didn’t [know about the topics covered in the debate]. Until recently, MSM has completely whitewashed Obama’s past,” is simply to prove that you’re not paying any attention to what the MSM is actually saying, and it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in your Google skills, either. There are tens of thousands of results on NYTimes.com for stories on Obama’s lapel decorations or his association with Jeremiah Wright. Even if you pick out all the blog-only results, how are you going to claim that the New York Times, lead bogeyman for all that would be liberal and mainstream, has been ignoring these stories?
Also, your assertion that, once we’ve beat these inanities into the ground over and over, then — then! — “we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion of the issues” … I … we … right. Sure.
So you do hire people. Do you ever ask them questions about how they would do at the job, their qualifications for it, or what they would do differently from how things were previously done? Or do you merely call up their references, ask them about something stupid you heard they’d said once, and call it an interview?
So at least you’re honest that you don’t care about Clinton’s or Obama’s positions on anything, since it’s a foregone conclusion you’re not going to vote for them.
And, everybody, nobody is denying you the right to come up with whatever metric you think is the best for deciding how to vote if they merely point out that your metric is silly. If I tell you I’m voting for whoever is the tallest and most attractive (you know, looks best on TV), and you say that’s a horrible way to choose a president (and not just because your guy loses both ways), you’re not denying me my right to make horrible decisions, you’re just calling my decisions horrible.
Susan, if it’s “about time the media’s curiosity reflected my own!” (@16), do I even need to ask if the media, in reflecting your interests now, is still somehow going to end up being liberal in so doing?
Ah, the liberal media …
At a meeting of newspaper editors, John McCain was given a standing ovation, as well as a box of doughnuts from the people he referred to as “my friends”.
Obama was not given a standing ovation. And his last name was confused with bin Laden’s first name by the AP chairman. Nice.
File this under “an exception to the rule”. With all the rest of the many exceptions.
‘do I even need to ask if the media, in reflecting your interests now, is still somehow going to end up being liberal in so doing’
No, tODD. ‘In so doing’, the media is not behaving ‘liberal’. But in their handling of these issues that are non-issues to you, they are not being thorough either. And they certainly haven’t taken up the conservative cause.
They are being, as Limbaugh so succinctly terms it, ‘drive-by’. Stir it up; fire a few shots; then drive on.
Perhaps McCain’s Standing O conveyed AP’s appreciation of his own heroic history, rather than shared delight in his political positions. And you have to hand it to the man: he talks and talks and talks with reporters and editors, without filters on his mouth or tethers to his staff and handlers. (And I’m no fan of what he often says to them.)
Maybe they were showing their appreciation for that availibility and relative transparency as well.
What did you presume they were saying? Are you saying they, in at least a show of fairness, should have risen for Obama as well? Are they not entitled to make their own judgments as to who’s worthy of such a token, regardless of what anyone who’s not a reporter–or not even in the room–might think?
Is the Liberal Media Rulebook so unforgiving, that Liberal Media Members can’t be spontaneously large-hearted?
PS–And no one has denied anyone the right to call my metric for judging a candidate’s fitness a ’silly’ metric.
But, in so deeming it ’silly’–presuming you mean it’s narrow-minded, a misuse of our judgments, and a fixation on the irrelevant–do you not risk appearing obtuse, as well as uncharitable?
I think the case has been laid out pretty strongly here, that many of us deem a candidate’s associations to be as important as his policies. Not just who he or she partners with in writing and passing legislation, but who he or she partners with to worship, to raise campaign funds, and to get policy ideas.
It’s called ‘where he [or she] is coming from.’ Says a lot about a person, who they deal with, whom they admire, etc. I remember a big kerfuffle when candidate George Bush cited Jesus Christ as a most admired political figure. That said volumes and raised lots of flags, among all the right people.
That’s why we don’t think it’s silly. I wonder what associations of Bush’s, Cheney’s, McCain’s, et al would trouble you. None? Because it’s silly on its face?
Same goes for the questioners’ associations, to bring us back to Dr. Veith’s original questions.
Tell me what part of a Stephanopoulos or a Russert or a Chris Matthews is historically fair-minded or impartial, for purposes of moderating any debate, let alone acting as a reporter or a commentator.
But that’s a travesty of long standing, and a sure sign of the proclivities of the networks, at least.
Karl Rove being signed as anchor of the Nightly News would hardly mitigate the abuse, but only further expose the networks’ goal of making the news ‘pop’, in more uses of the word than one, rather than to make it more informative.
tODD, in all of your ranting about media bias on this thread, you’ve missed the fundamental issue of the thread. The remarkable thing about the debate is that ABC was so blind to conflict of interest and potential for bias that they permitted the man who the Communications Director in the Clinton administration to moderate a debate between the wife of his former boss, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Do you understand how remarkable that is? How incredible it was that ABC and Mr. Stephanopoulus did not recognize the appearance of bias, and recuse him from moderating the debate for that reason alone? Also, why Obama’s campaign didn’t object to this arrangement? Truly remarkable.
What is also remarkable is that it took this level of bias by a member of the MSM for them to see clearly enough to actually ask a penetrating question of Mr. Obama, instead of the fawning ones he has been getting all along. So the Clinton bias apparently was strong enough to overcome the liberal bias, resulting in a decent series of debate questions.
We on the right, who are entirely used to this level of bias on the part of MSM against republicans, are just marveling and enjoying this rare moment. That’s all.
The problem with Stephanopoulos, Russert and Matthews is that they are presented as newsmen. I have no problem with them as commentators - they have very keen insight because of their backgrounds, they should be commentating. I think you could put John Stossal in this group as a biased guy presented as a reporter on the conservative side.
Rove is on Fox News but only to analyze the political strategies of the candidates. He is not reporting news; he is saying, “Obama should do X to shore up the Philly or Pittsburg, etc.” This makes sense, he did manage to win two presidential elections. He has a level of understanding of the topic. But I don’t believe he should be presented as a “newsman.”
Rush, Hannity et al. they are commentators and don’t claim to be neutral. I lest I have never heard them claim neutrality – and have heard them both admit their bias.
I have no problem with biased commentary, just biased news.
No, I don’t mind their commentating either, Joe, as much as I mind their moderating, anchoring, and news reporting.
But I do mind the dearth of oppositionally-minded commentators. I do mind there being only an echo-chamber for liberal voices to dance around inside of.
And, Don S., you described the quandary ABC, Obama, et al, have brought upon themselves through this debate, very accurately.
I still don’t think liberals have realized what hit them, or by whose petard they have been hoisted.
‘So the Clinton bias apparently was strong enough to overcome the liberal bias, resulting in a decent series of debate questions.’
That’s a brilliant summation, Don S.
It’s not schadenfreude in the sense of glee over a liberal finally getting a grilling, but that liberals have upset one another, merely by using a common liberal tactic. On each other!
Operation Chaos, anyone?
Leave your response!
Search
About the Blogger
Gene Edward Veith is the Provost and Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.
Lucas Cranach, self portrait c.1530.
About Lucas Cranach
Lucas Cranach was the great artist of the Reformation. He was a close friend of Martin Luther. He was a businessman, who first printed Luther's translation of the Bible; a politician, who served on the Wittenberg town council and served the city as its mayor; a chemist, who operated a pharmacy; a teacher, who trained a host of apprentice artists; a family-man, who helped arrange Luther's marriage with the two men serving as the godfathers of each other's children; and an active layman in his church, who gave his pastors important personal and material support. As a Christian who lived out his faith in his many different callings, Cranach thus embodies the Reformation doctrine of vocation, using the gifts God had given him in service to Christ and his neighbor in the church, the family, the workplace, and the culture. In the spirit of Lucas Cranach, this blog will discuss wide-ranging issues of Christianity and culture with a Lutheran twist.
Books on Vocation
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
Site Statistics
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Most Viewed
© Cranach: The Blog of Veith — Copyblogger theme design by Chris Pearson