While I'm an admitted progressive/liberal, I'm not blind to biases displayed on both sides of the political spectrum. I'll be the first to admit MSNBC leans to the left, but would be remiss if I didn't also say Fox News leaned to the right. I read and research more concerning the world of politics than I care to admit (yes, an AA-type meeting may be just around the corner). It's reached the point where even die-hard conservatives I know won't engage in political banter with me, because I rarely, if ever, make a statement without having researched and fact-checked it first, and if they utter a statement they haven't fully researched, they know darn well I'll likely be able to fact-check and debunk their claim within a matter of seconds. To this point in the seemingly never-ending election season (isn't the election next year?), I've watched each and every debate, from the three Republican junior varsity debates, to the one Democratic debate, to the three Republican varsity debates. I've tried to keep an open mind during each, attempted to hear all the candidates out, and sincerely tried to fairly grade the networks' moderators and the candidates on their performances. I say this because it appears as though a majority of conservatives are angry with CNBC's handling of the debate last night. While the debate was far from perfect, I have to at least partially defend the right-leaning business news network (yes, right leaning; this isn't the same channel as MSNBC, as some have mistakenly declared). First, let me briefly grade and analyze the four large debates to this point (I won't grade the JV debates):
The GOP Fox News debate: This had the genuine feel of a first debate to me. The candidates appeared rather rusty, not yet ready to talk about anything of substance, so as could be expected, this debate definitely left much to be desired on the information front. Moderators Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace did a decent job, I felt, but often appeared to go back and forth between coming across like cheerleaders for the Republican Party and of trying to be nonpartisan journalists. For as slanted to the right as the network is, I was somewhat surprised they attempted to showcase nonpartisan journalism at all, so that was a definite plus in my book. Grade: C+
The GOP CNN debate: I don't know what CNN was thinking here to be perfectly honest. Led by Jake Tapper, the moderators appeared to be secretly working for TMZ, trying to insitgate a pay-per-view-worthy fight, especially between Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. While the lack of substance in the first debate mainly fell on the shoulders of the candidates, the lack of substance in this second debate fell on the shoulders of both the candidates and the moderators. Of the four debates, I felt this was by far the worst. Grade: D
The Democratic CNN debate: For as disappointed as I was with CNN's Republican debate, my expectations for their Democratic debate were quite low. Perhaps that factored into how I viewed this debate, but I came away rather impressed with how Anderson Cooper moderated it. While, on occasion, he did appear to ask questions from a right-wing conspiracy website, these questions were few and far between, and whereas the first two debates lacked substance, he made certain of it that wasn't the case here. Grade: B+
The GOP CNBC debate: To me, this debate appeared to be a hybrid of the two CNN debates. While, similar to Jake Tapper, John Harwood and company tried at times to provoke candidates to confront others on stage, they were also the first moderators of a GOP debate to bring about actual substance from some of the candidates. Yes, most of the candidates ignored the specific questions and went into talking-point mode, but still, for a GOP debate to this point in election season, some substance is a significant step in the right direction. Two weak points of this debate were the moderators Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, who ironically appeared to be the animated characters Ted Cruz falsely ranted about at one point. Also, I commend CNBC trying a structured format so they could provide equal time to each of the ten candidates (or at least a similar amount of time). This wasn't always successful of course, and had its downsides, but unlike the other two GOP debates, where some candidates went 15-20 minutes without speaking, that wasn't the case in last night's debate. So far as loud as critics, especially those on the right, have been of last night's debate, to me, it was a mixed bag of successes and failures, a hybrid of the two CNN debates, and to this point, the most entertaining and substantive of the Republican debates. Grade: B-
If there was a running theme from last night's debate, it was that most Republicans don't trust the mainstream media, and this is a big reason why I feel a majority of them are angry about last night's debate. Over the past 20 years, there has been a growing chorus of conservatives who have laid claim that the mainstream media is liberally-biased and not to be trusted. So they then resort to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts, as well as right-wing websites such as RedState.com and WorldNetDaily.com, to gather their information. and when they're called out by another debunking a claim they made and they ask for the source in which the individual found it, chances are they'll respond with, "Well, they're just part of the liberal media!" Yes, I've heard this even with regard to fact-checkers, you know, the people who get paid to research the validity of claims. So it's as if die-hard conservatives have increasingly closed off reputable mainstream sources because they've been told (brainwashed) they're slanted to the left, and when they get called out about an inaccurate claim they made, they simply assert that the fact they were provided wasn't a fact at all; it was just another example of liberal propaganda. This has made it increasingly more difficult to civilly discuss political matters with them and even for journalists to interview them. While I won't argue that there were a few gotcha-let's-spark-some-controversy-and-headlines questions from last night's debate, those very questions were far outnumbered by ones containing actual substance. The GOP candidates weren't provided the softballs that Fox News and CNN gave them in the first two debates. They were asked specific questions about their policy positions of the past and present, policy ideas for the future, and overall character. How do they expect voters to make well-informed decisions on who to vote for? Talking points and bumper-sticker slogans? While I'll be first to admit CNBC went a little far with a couple of their questions, it's perfectly reasonable and fair for moderators to ask questions which attempt to provide a clearer picture of candidates' past, present, what they plan for the future, and their overall character. Also, let's not forget - multiple GOP candidates complained about a lack of speaking time at the first two debates, others complained about the long duration of them, and CNBC offered a platform which attempted to provide equal speaking time for each of the ten candidates in a condensed time-slot. They provided an opportunity for candidates to defend criticisms against them, to clarify their positions on matters, and to offer a better glimpse into who each of them were and what they stood for; yet for the most part, the candidates turned the platform and substantive questions back around on the moderators, basically saying, "We're not going to get into specifics! We're not going to talk about our pasts! We're not going to hold ourselves accountable for any mistakes we may have made previously! We're just going to go after you and the rest of the liberal media, even though you're a conservatively-slanted pro-business network, much like the fair-and-balanced Fox News goes after Democrats!"
I find it ironic that the GOP railed against Hillary Clinton for 11 hours at the Benghazi hearing a number of days ago, where even many conservative commentators admitted the Democratic front-runner appeared composed and like the big winner of the day, yet the party's finest can't seem to get through a two-hour debate moderated by the conservative-leaning pro-business network CNBC for 2 hours.
Hillary Clinton (11 hours into the Benghazi hearing): "Really? That's all you've got?"
The top ten GOP presidential candidates (2 hours into the CNBC debate): "Whaaa! Why do you have to say such things? Why? Mommy, where's my pacifier?"
The GOP Fox News debate: This had the genuine feel of a first debate to me. The candidates appeared rather rusty, not yet ready to talk about anything of substance, so as could be expected, this debate definitely left much to be desired on the information front. Moderators Brett Baier, Megyn Kelly, and Chris Wallace did a decent job, I felt, but often appeared to go back and forth between coming across like cheerleaders for the Republican Party and of trying to be nonpartisan journalists. For as slanted to the right as the network is, I was somewhat surprised they attempted to showcase nonpartisan journalism at all, so that was a definite plus in my book. Grade: C+
The GOP CNN debate: I don't know what CNN was thinking here to be perfectly honest. Led by Jake Tapper, the moderators appeared to be secretly working for TMZ, trying to insitgate a pay-per-view-worthy fight, especially between Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. While the lack of substance in the first debate mainly fell on the shoulders of the candidates, the lack of substance in this second debate fell on the shoulders of both the candidates and the moderators. Of the four debates, I felt this was by far the worst. Grade: D
The Democratic CNN debate: For as disappointed as I was with CNN's Republican debate, my expectations for their Democratic debate were quite low. Perhaps that factored into how I viewed this debate, but I came away rather impressed with how Anderson Cooper moderated it. While, on occasion, he did appear to ask questions from a right-wing conspiracy website, these questions were few and far between, and whereas the first two debates lacked substance, he made certain of it that wasn't the case here. Grade: B+
The GOP CNBC debate: To me, this debate appeared to be a hybrid of the two CNN debates. While, similar to Jake Tapper, John Harwood and company tried at times to provoke candidates to confront others on stage, they were also the first moderators of a GOP debate to bring about actual substance from some of the candidates. Yes, most of the candidates ignored the specific questions and went into talking-point mode, but still, for a GOP debate to this point in election season, some substance is a significant step in the right direction. Two weak points of this debate were the moderators Jim Cramer and Rick Santelli, who ironically appeared to be the animated characters Ted Cruz falsely ranted about at one point. Also, I commend CNBC trying a structured format so they could provide equal time to each of the ten candidates (or at least a similar amount of time). This wasn't always successful of course, and had its downsides, but unlike the other two GOP debates, where some candidates went 15-20 minutes without speaking, that wasn't the case in last night's debate. So far as loud as critics, especially those on the right, have been of last night's debate, to me, it was a mixed bag of successes and failures, a hybrid of the two CNN debates, and to this point, the most entertaining and substantive of the Republican debates. Grade: B-
If there was a running theme from last night's debate, it was that most Republicans don't trust the mainstream media, and this is a big reason why I feel a majority of them are angry about last night's debate. Over the past 20 years, there has been a growing chorus of conservatives who have laid claim that the mainstream media is liberally-biased and not to be trusted. So they then resort to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts, as well as right-wing websites such as RedState.com and WorldNetDaily.com, to gather their information. and when they're called out by another debunking a claim they made and they ask for the source in which the individual found it, chances are they'll respond with, "Well, they're just part of the liberal media!" Yes, I've heard this even with regard to fact-checkers, you know, the people who get paid to research the validity of claims. So it's as if die-hard conservatives have increasingly closed off reputable mainstream sources because they've been told (brainwashed) they're slanted to the left, and when they get called out about an inaccurate claim they made, they simply assert that the fact they were provided wasn't a fact at all; it was just another example of liberal propaganda. This has made it increasingly more difficult to civilly discuss political matters with them and even for journalists to interview them. While I won't argue that there were a few gotcha-let's-spark-some-controversy-and-headlines questions from last night's debate, those very questions were far outnumbered by ones containing actual substance. The GOP candidates weren't provided the softballs that Fox News and CNN gave them in the first two debates. They were asked specific questions about their policy positions of the past and present, policy ideas for the future, and overall character. How do they expect voters to make well-informed decisions on who to vote for? Talking points and bumper-sticker slogans? While I'll be first to admit CNBC went a little far with a couple of their questions, it's perfectly reasonable and fair for moderators to ask questions which attempt to provide a clearer picture of candidates' past, present, what they plan for the future, and their overall character. Also, let's not forget - multiple GOP candidates complained about a lack of speaking time at the first two debates, others complained about the long duration of them, and CNBC offered a platform which attempted to provide equal speaking time for each of the ten candidates in a condensed time-slot. They provided an opportunity for candidates to defend criticisms against them, to clarify their positions on matters, and to offer a better glimpse into who each of them were and what they stood for; yet for the most part, the candidates turned the platform and substantive questions back around on the moderators, basically saying, "We're not going to get into specifics! We're not going to talk about our pasts! We're not going to hold ourselves accountable for any mistakes we may have made previously! We're just going to go after you and the rest of the liberal media, even though you're a conservatively-slanted pro-business network, much like the fair-and-balanced Fox News goes after Democrats!"
I find it ironic that the GOP railed against Hillary Clinton for 11 hours at the Benghazi hearing a number of days ago, where even many conservative commentators admitted the Democratic front-runner appeared composed and like the big winner of the day, yet the party's finest can't seem to get through a two-hour debate moderated by the conservative-leaning pro-business network CNBC for 2 hours.
Hillary Clinton (11 hours into the Benghazi hearing): "Really? That's all you've got?"
The top ten GOP presidential candidates (2 hours into the CNBC debate): "Whaaa! Why do you have to say such things? Why? Mommy, where's my pacifier?"
Comments
Post a Comment