Summarizing: Obama is receiving unprecedented political and associational scrutiny here from ABC. Has he gotten a pass for the first 21 debates? Or is ABC going to precipitate a backlash? I'm getting lots of e-mail feedback from usually temperate Obama supporters, like: "This is the craziest thing i have ever seen. Did they take money from the Clinton campaign?" On the other hand, I can envision Clinton supporters saying to themselves, "Yeah, baby, now you know what it feels like."
« Debate Wire II | Main | Debate Wire IV » Debate Wire III16 Apr 2008 08:48 pm Comments (32)
Backlash. 
I have never seen a worse spectacle in journalism. This debate has made Fox News look like the beacon of journalistic standards. One hour of character assassination of Obama without asking a SINGLE question about a substantive issue of policy? Are you kidding me?
Online (I don't have tv) I'm seeing backlash. We've done these scandals; almost an hour in and ABC still isn't worrying its pretty head about, say, recession, Fed reserve, social security, health care, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Sudan?
This is the false "issues" at it's worst, absolute worst. Ask a real question, about a real issue!
This debate is like a neutron bomb, which kills all human life, and leaves only process standing.
I could understand these "Clinton supporters" you mention, except, HRC has NEVER, NEVER, been hit for 40 minutes on "unprecedented political and associational scrutiny" like this. It's fine in my mind, because it's out there, but for a Clintonista to argue that this is leveling the playing field is bogus, since HRC is treated with kid gloves pretty much all the time.
This is the worst debate ever. By far.
Perhaps, Charlie and GS are signaling not only Obama's front runner status but the imminent end of the primaries, with their relentless questioning. By the time general election debates begin, issues and narratives would also have veered off in some other directions.
I agree. It was ridiculous. Better now, though.
this debate is a f-ing joke.
ABC isn't necessarily targeting Obama unfairly. They're targeting both candidates unfairly. I'm an Obama supporter and I recognize that questions to Hillary are nasty too. But yeah, Obama is getting the more ridiculous questions. Flag pins? William Ayers? Good God.
ABC has been doing anti-Dem bias for awhile now. Started with that 9/11 "docudrama" right before the 2006 elections where Clinton was given all the blame. The Right wants to run against Clinton.
I actually cannot imagine the Clinton supporters saying "now you know what it feels like," because even Russert did not spend a FULL HOUR - one whole half of the debate - crucifying her on ridiculous claims that have been vetted and put to rest already. Also, it's disturbing that Daily Kos has evidence that George Stephanopoulos got his questions, particularly the one about Ayers, from Sean Hannity when he appeared on the show yesterday: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/16/13329/3501/457/496866 I think so far the debate has been a disgusting show of the mainstream media's bent toward ratings by playing up trashy, unimportant issues while sacrificing things Americans care about. I do not see the MSM being a good judge about any candidate being out-of-touch, because this debate reinforces my belief that the media certainly are very far out-of-touch. But of course, we won't see an hour now of opening up old wounds about Clinton, her relationship with groups like The Fellowship for her Bible study, or excessive opportunities for Obama to just respond in whatever way he wants - for however long he wants - in order to attack her, the way they just gave Clinton those opportunities over & over for the last hour. So who knows, maybe there is some truth to the bias comments? After all, how is it ethical to have Stephanopoulos moderating when he worked for the Clintons for a long time? ABC has no mores whatsoever, and throughout this campaign have shown to be the trashiest of the network news sources in regards to what issues (gaffes/gotcha moments?) it covers, and how it covers them.
My husband just left the room and told me if they start making any sense call him back...this is not newsworthy, it is a joke
My husband just left the room and told me if they start making any sense call him back...this is not newsworthy, it is a joke
This debate has been sickening. I really respected ABC News. This Week is the only show to allow a committed progressive like Katrina vanden Heuvel on the air and I usually make it a habit to watch, even when she's not on. I'm a less regular viewer of Charlie Gibson, but you'd figure that he'd have ample incentive to try to cast himself as a serious, issues-based newsman, to heighten the contrast with Couric and Williams. But this debate has been pathetic. It took an hour to get to Iraq, a situation that has undermined our hegemony and cost our nation trillions. They our digging up whatever crap they can find to fling at Obama. Do you like the flag? (Don't blame us, some lady in an ugly sweater really wants to know). Why don't you punch people with extreme views in the face more often? Just terrible.
Her puppy, George, will get a pad tonight
ABC isn't necessarily targeting Obama unfairly. They're targeting voters and viewers unfairly. Ask any given voter to list 3 issues they wanted the candidates to address; I bet the first hour wasn't it. According to Al at The Field, the people-meters pop up whenever Obama manages to turn it to issues. But the moderators don't want to go there.
This is what you get for going to ABC for news or responsible journalism. Leave that to the real news networks, CNN, MSNBC, and shoot, even Fox News' questions are better than this crap!
Hmm, George Stephanopoulous... now who did he work for before ABC? I just plumb forgot.
Backlash! This Week: Other News Programs:
I expected a question on "Bittergate" and Tuzla and maybe one (more) on Reverend Wright. Those non-issues are out there and top-of-the-mind and it would have seemed odd to not address them. Can you imagine the battering Charlie would have received had he NOT asked about Bittergate? But -- and this is a big but -- that's ALL I expected. Get those out of the way, then get on to more important issues. Gas prices, how we get out of Iraq (for real), how we're going to play those issues against the GOP in the fall, etc. In fact, I think a lot of voters would like a preview of the general election strategy (cuz frankly, we've heard the healthcare debate so often we can quote it).
We should close the journalism schools and start anew. Apparently, few reporters have any notion of what is actually important to us. How about some discussion of the issues? Who really cares if Senator Clinton thinks Senator Obama is electable? This is irrelevant since the voters will decide. Who wants to hear again about Bosnia? Haven't we heard all of that already? Who wants to hear about some paper given to a group years ago? How about what legislation they will work to pass next year? Ridiculous. This is the silly season. Perhaps this happened because the issues have been discussed thoroughly and we know the candidates' positions. I don't know. I do know it was a waste of my precious time.
OK, I'll bite: "Yeah, baby, now you know what it feels like." If Hillary Clinton could survive the big gang bang by Tim Russert and Brian Williams on MSNBC (twice), Obama will live through this tame-by-comparison debate by ABC News. Maybe next time you'll have more sympathy for the intense scrutiny she's been under since last fall. Nah ..............
I have not renewed my subscription.
"OK, I'll bite: "Yeah, baby, now you know what it feels like." If Hillary Clinton could survive the big gang bang by Tim Russert and Brian Williams on MSNBC (twice), Obama will live through this tame-by-comparison debate by ABC News. Maybe next time you'll have more sympathy for the intense scrutiny she's been under since last fall. Nah .............." Clinton has never been attacked like that in a debate, it was essentially 3 against 1. Presidential are never that harsh from the standpoint of the questioners, Obama was consistently put on the defensive. Though the attacks were over the top, and they appeared to be ganging up on him, it still presented Obama the chance to rise to the challenge and he didn't. He was caught off guard which should be a lesson to him. He was thrown for a loop at the start and he never recovered.
So after Obama elevated the debate with his Philadelphia speech to the national stage, a chance for the electorate to freely and honestly confront race and religion issues, the simpleton media pundits would rather dwell on low blows discussing Rev Wright? Was there any question regarding the challenges Obama laid, the anger or resentments that most voters may relate to often that need serious redress? I live in rural GA, those issues are not trivial to us, my grandmother was horrified after those clips ran, then she watched the speech, today she is reading "Dreams of my father". Rev Wright led her to Obama. If George cares so much about Rev Wright, why not ask him what he thought about being a Marine, when many presidents were draft dodgers, and having to still sit at the back of the bus, or what motivated him to take a trip to Libya with Farrakhan and J Jackson to free an American pilot captured in Syria? Why did JB Johnson, and Ronald Regan honor Rev Wright? C'mon he is not hiding in the hills of Pakistan, he is AN America private citizen, and ABC can surely summon him, or sue him if that will advance issues in this country. And who cares who Obama has associated with in the past? Only a person who cannot maintain their core decency would worry about every associate they have had or will ever have. For heavens sake this is a country who had Trent Lott (we know him) as a Senate Majority Leader up to 2007, and Dems are afraid of what the GOP will do? A GOP Christian president led this country to war on a lie and falsehoods and we can still discuss public morality? ABC whose payroll are you on??? Heck of job! but certainly not for "We the People
Look I am an Obama supporter, and I don't like to buy into some media conspiracy, but tonight's debate was just utterly ridiculous.
Yes, Obama was pushed around a lot tonight, but the real problem was those clowns that masquerade as anchorpeople. These are journalists? What an affront to the profession.
ABC did Obama a favor. He picked up a Hillary superdelegate.
Last nights Democratic debate was a terrible, terrible display by ABC. Poor questions, trivial questions, mid slinging questions. Do they give the American public no credit for brains? Discuss the issues and stop the voyerism on old relationships, trivial issues like flag pins. My god that was an embarrassment for their network and american journalism in general.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
ABC will get a backlash, this is ridiculous!!!! It has been 50 minutes and they still haven't talked about one issue!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Stephanie | April 16, 2008 8:53 PM