Back to Just About the Most Important News Story in the Country, After a Word from Our Sponsors
I don’t know what you plan to do with your tax rebate, but I’d like to put mine to a good cause: buying the FCC a spine.
Tonight’s Democratic presidential debate is sponsored by ABC, and as the folks at TPM pointed out, they’re treating it like some run-of-the-mill TV show. Or, to my way of thinking, like a special episode of "Desperate Housewives."
Not only is ABC broadcasting the debate on time-delay to us here on the West Coast — making the debate far less important, evidently, than the Oscars, which get broadcast in real time everywhere in the world.
But ABC is banning any other broadcast or Web outlets from using more than a single 30-second clip from a presidential debate until the morning after. "We have an obligation," a spokesman told the New York Times, "to our West Coast affiliates to not make chunks of the debate available until their viewers have had a chance to see them."
Their viewers? Their viewers are American citizens, entitled to take free and unfettered part in the electoral process which — at last reading — is not a moneymaking opportunity, but a civic duty. Rather than rolling over to the privatizing of public discourse, the FCC should muster some guts and insist that networks, broadcast and cable, take turns broadcasting presidential debates in real time, commercial-free, to the entire nation, in what is beyond question the public interest.
Silly me. I forgot that this is the FCC, the agency that defined Howard Stern's show as "a bona fide news program" just so Stern could throw lewd lines at then-gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, without having to devote any air time to any of the other candidates in an election that, to Californians, wasn't a joke but a vital exercise of political responsibility.
Oh wait, my bad — the Stern show did want to interview one other gubernatorial candidate. The porn star.
It is outrageous that they are not broadcasting this live on the Internet as other stations did. I don't have a TV but would have watched this on my computer.
Posted by: Linda E. | April 16, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Lol, after the way Campbell Brown sucked Obama's toes, and Tim Russert looked like a vicious troll ready to leap over the table at Clinton, I think it's pretty rich that Obama supporters and the Obamedia are crying over this debate. This is far from the nastiest questioning in a debate, but this time some of it was aimed at Obama for a change. The problem wasn't the debate format or questions, it was Obama's performance. If he'd handled his responses really well, y'all would be rejoicing and showering him with praise. He didn't.
For the record, I still think the flag pin crap is nonsense. And I'll concede that MAYBE because I've seen so much bias against Clinton, a little bias against Obama isn't visible to me. Either way, she's faced the firing line in these debates numerous times, and the bias was obvious - it's a little late, and lame, to be crying fowl now, and the media uproar coming to his defense just makes that more obvious.
This debate was the most fair one yet. I liked that the responses were timed, and each were given an equal amount of time. I liked that the questions were staggered, and that they "flipped a coin" to see who would go first on opening and closings. I was impressed that both were challenged with tough questions and not allowed to wiggle out of fully answering.
ABC handled this debate in a very admirable way, and I think both candidates supporters should have been satisfied with the fairness of the debate, for a change. This is how journalists should handle debates. Anyone remember journalism? Both got hit with three very tough issues, some of which have been dominating the news. Obama: Rev. Wright, his infamous "bitter" remarks, and his association with William Ayers. Clinton: Her Bosnia exaggeration, her purported statements that Obama was unelectable, and a public opinion poll about her honesty.
For his part, Obama rationalized, made excuses, stammered a lot, and declared the subjects absurd and a distraction from the issues. While Clinton apologized and ate a lot of crow for her "mistakes," describing her trip to Bosnia and got badgered into saying Obama is electable.
Their discussion of the issues wasn't anything all that new; however, Obama did stumble a bit on his position on payroll and capital gains taxes. My main observation is that Clinton was ASKED questions about her positions on Wright and Obama's bitter comments, and she responded, owning her position, while Obama hedged on the Bosnia question, admitting his "campaign" was hammering on it, "of course," yet somehow dodging personal responsibility for what his campaign is doing? That just seemed dishonest to me. If his campaign is doing it - HE is. I'd much rather see the candidates own their positions and actions, than try and appear above the fray, when their actions don't match the perception they're trying to falsely portray.
Posted by: Teri B. | April 17, 2008 at 11:28 AM