Did soft bias again affect the debate?
posted at 8:10 am on October 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Last night, I wrote that Tom Brokaw did a credible job as moderator and showed no obvious bias during the debate. Indeed, the one time when Brokaw enforced the no-response rule came when he shut down Barack Obama, much to Obama’s obvious frustration. But as with Gwen Ifill, complaints about a more subtle bias in the debate have arisen in the choice of questions Brokaw offered.
In fact, there are two complaints being heard about Brokaw’s performance. The less-substantive gripe is that Brokaw asked too many of his own questions, supposedly making a mockery of the town-hall format. That format died when everyone agreed to have Brokaw and his team vet the questions and decide which would be asked. A real town hall forum uses spontaneity for its energy. All we got last night were Brokaw’s chosen questions, delivered by his selected writers. Brokaw just outsourced his writing staff. The union should file a complaint of its own.
The question of questions is a stronger accusation. Like Ifill, Brokaw managed to avoid the following topics:
- Abortion
- Gun control
- Judicial nominations
- Immigration
With the current financial crisis, an emphasis on economics was expected. Brokaw did ask about entitlement reform, which hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention. However, the topics above have driven presidential politics for decades and have single-issue constituencies that matter in elections. For the second straight debate, Americans didn’t hear candidate views on any of them.
Does that oversight help Barack Obama? On the first topic, most definitely. It would have provided an opportunity for McCain to hammer Obama for his opposition to the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and explain to a national audience how Obama acted to protect infanticide. Gun control would have allowed McCain to challenge the Con Law expert on why he couldn’t take a stand on the Second Amendment before Heller. Judicial nominations would have spoken to the base in both parties, and on immigration, little daylight exists between the two candidates.
I’d call the latter two topics a draw, but McCain got hurt by not getting a question on the first two. Brokaw made the decision on questions, and he has to take responsibility for his choices. The lack of queries on these perennially hot topics should raise a few eyebrows. Will the American public get a chance to hear the candidates answer on them in the third and final debate?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I did not detect any bias on the part of Brokaw. He showed no particular favoritism to either candidate. The two candidates pretty much stuck to their talking points.
IMHO McCain needed an impressive showing. He was simply not very impressive. He seemed glib about the solution to the issues. There is no way the US can afford to tackle the Economy, Healthcare, and Entitlements at the same time.
Obama is just coasting now. Not very impressive either.
Neither McMain nor Obama appear to have a real grasp of the seriousness of the economic situation. Unfortunately, McCain is extremely weak on the economy and it showed. Obama is still prepared to tax us out of this problem. At this point we need a leader and neither one looks like a leader on the economic issues. Here in NC it looks like the economy is going to trump the war as a voting issue. There is no joy in Mudville tonight.
kanda on October 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Please allow me to re-post my comment from last night’s thread ……
After that post I turned off what I thought was a mockery of a debate. As usual the questions were rigged in Obama’s favor and McCain was nearly unwatchable, as he stumbled through his responses to Brokaw’s questions.
Hell no. The final ‘debate’ will be hosted by Bob Schieffer of CBS News, completing the liberal MSM trifecta for the presidential faceoffs. Why don’t we just let Al Gore or Obama’s two daughters host the last debate. Sheesh.
Time to focus on ACORN’s attempt to rig the elections, get it on the front pages, expose the outright fraud and stimulate the republican base to defeat those who have accused us of stealing elections for the past eight years.
And have Palin drive the point home, not McCain.
fogw on October 8, 2008 at 10:59 AM
yeah Tom did a nice job of NOT asking burning questions because they would damage his party. Nice huh? Way to go Broke-all
johnnyU on October 8, 2008 at 11:15 AM
We have the most pro-abortion and anti-gun candidate ever in this race. There hasn’t been ANY talk about these topics in either debate. Yeah, it’s a coincidence. You bitter clingers should just relax. It won’t hurt as much when the Obama Youth cart you off to your neighborhood reeducation camp that way.
Does Team McCain have any ads about education? I noticed Barry talked about his plans for education aain last night without being prompted. Maybe some video whiz on here can whip up somethin for youtube about the Annenberg Challenge and Obama’s money wasting work to reform education in the mold of Bill Ayers?
hump1201 on October 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I thought that Brokaw helped Obama recover at the end with the “Zen” question. Obama clearly floundered through the foreign policy question and was off balance by the end of the debate. The “Zen” question allowed him to recover his footing and get back on his talking points. McCain also did himself no favors by, despite a few jabs, taking the high road and answering the questions put to him (as opposed to Obama on several occasion basically saying, “That’s an important issue”… and then moving on to his own talking points). McCain also did NOT insist on a response to Obama’s attacks on “deregulation” being the cause of the financial meltdown, and his passivity on this is allowing the picture to be painted that it’s Bush’s and the Republican’s fault rather than where the real blame lays.
I had a sinking feeling that this was a Bob Dole performance by someone who needs to WANT the presidency more than he showed me last night. The stakes are too high to let Obama’s lies pass unchallenged. He once was a fighter pilot, I thought McCain would understand the need to get on Obama’s Six and stay there until he shoots the guy down in flames come November 4 at the polls.
EasyEight on October 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The abortion issue should have been raised in the Palin-Biden debate.
McCain and Obama had already addressed. Palin is pro-life with a Down Syndrome child, and Biden has every archbishop breathing down his neck.
Ifill enabled Obama-Biden to dodge an enormous bullet.
BuckeyeSam on October 8, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Why bitch about what Brokaw did ??? We all KNEW what he will do. The real dummies in this situation are the ” no balls ” Republicans … yes !!! Do Democrats ever agree to debate on FOX ??? Yet the Republicans always agree on lefwingers like Brokaw and Ifill to moderate a political debate … only to bitch when the debate is over. They think that by letting leftwingers moderate the debate they will get few votes from Democrates … hmmmm !!!
aniladesai on October 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Ed – There is no such thing as soft bias.
Signed,
Allah
Fuquay Steve on October 8, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I actually felt that Brokaw was the least professional and most bias of the debate moderators so far.
First, was his framing of questions. I am too lazy right now to look up the precise quotes, but several questions were framed to around left leaning policies and, on one or two, Tom stated something to the effect of, “The question is this, but I am going to put my own spin on it”. This often forced McCain to debate the policy that Tom offered as “indisputable”, reframe the question then respond with his own view.
One of the most glaring examples was the ‘priorities’ question, where McCain answered that all the priorities Tom mentioned not only could be managed simultaneously but must be managed simultaneously. When going to Obama, Brokaw editorialized that there were “questions” about if each could be equally and simultaneously managed (completely discrediting McCain’s answer and explanation) and set the ball for Obama. McCain had to interrupt later and restate the he firmly believed that all 3 areas could be addressed and refute Tom.
Then, the next to the last question, Tom started addressing Obama as the green light still was visible over his shoulder, forcing McCain to talk over him and finish his statement. By contrast, despite overrunning his time constantly, Obama was never interrupted and Tom’s time criticism was always directed at both candidates.
At the start of the debate, it seemed like McCain was trying to keep to his allotted time until it became clear that he was getting half the blame for Obama’s overruns and Tom was doing nothing of substance to keep Obama in check(at least early on). Brokaw’s later refusal to allow Obama’s rebuttal (which he simply did anyway by ignoring the next question) seemed to be more and attempt by Brokaw to escape criticism of his bias and pathetic moderation than to actually order anything.
Damiano on October 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Simple answer: Yes.
And bias, soft and hard, is going to affect every debate until Republicans who negotiate debate terms as well as prominent conservative media figures step forward and demand a seat at the debate table.
As long as we accept the premise that only liberal media figures are qualified to moderate debates, we are going to continue to be plagued with this problem. It’s time for Republicans and conservative media figures to step up to the plate and demand a seat for one of ours at the moderators podium. Stop complaining and start doing.
thirteen28 on October 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Rush dropped in again this morning. Did anyone see him? He opened his show just now with the points Ed made in this post.
Good work, Ed! Good work, Rush!
petefrt on October 8, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Wrong Meryl.
McCain would NOT have attacked him on abortion. He would have attacked him for being for infanticide, and Obama would have been exposed completely on that issue in front of tens of millions.
Brokaw knows that and of course does not want Obama to be accountable for that.
Americans are AGAINST infanticide overwhelmingly.
Sapwolf on October 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Did you hear him open his show today with Ed’s points about the debate?
As Joe Six-pack posting here, I think my chances of being read are better by commenting at HA than in an email, or even in a personal blog.
AP, Ed, Michelle… thanks for the voice!
petefrt on October 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Palin should be asking why none of the topics are being brought up by the moderators. If she creates enough of a stink about it before the next debate, it will either push the moderator to address them, or it will highlight the fact if he doesn’t.
mtbunji on October 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM
How was this a town hall debate if Brokaw selected the questions? I didn’t watch but I I heard that the stools were good for Barack but not so good for McCain. Subtle yet profound bias.
Christine on October 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
The tragic results of “soft bias”.
The Zoo Keeper on October 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I think Brokaw did a really good job at being fair and unbiased. The questions were boring, that’s all.
apacalyps on October 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM
This was not a town hall. Brokaw showed bias via the questions he chose. Brokaw also acted old and at the end of the debate being unable to close the broadcast without viewing the teleprompter was classic. With his experience, he should have been able to remember what the teleprompter said.
gstrickler on October 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Hmm. Just reminded myself that questions more suited to one candidate instead of the other is bias incognito.
apacalyps on October 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
These three issues are so interrelated that they must be tackled at the same time. Unintended consequences of taking them one at a time will yield the others more problematic.
Three groups can study, come up with potential actions and then the three groups meet to determine how one acttion affects the others. The president and congress could establish bipartisan work groups for each issue. Preliminary reports given to president/congress and citizens to invite suggestions/critiques and eventually two members of the work groups could meet to develop a harmonious strategy/bills to be presented to Senate and House with sufficient time for citizens to again weigh in on the issues. The groups may have congressional leaders and citizens with expertise in the various issues.
To think that the president alone, or congress alone has the expertise in all areas is unrealistic. Let the executive and legislative branches continue with their daily business while these groups work to finally help solve the problems facing us. This could be done with other issues as well.
Pat in NC on October 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
One question invalidated the entire “debate” for me:
“What don’t you know and how would you learn it?”
What the hell kind of question is THAT? Was the person who wrote it some kind of HR genius? Why didn’t they just ask “Where do you see yourself in 5 years?” It would have been just as relevant.
What a joke.
Common Sense on October 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Talk about unintended consequences. The Federal government has been using the social security trust fund money since the 1960′s. President Johnson started taking it to pay for his “Great Society” and the Vietman war. It has been a truly bi-partisan effort ever since with each President and congress dipping in. You, would trust the Feds to “solve” the social security issue. They created it in the first place.
Almost all nations that offer socialized health care are being bankrupted by the high costs. Not to mention the quality of that socialized health care may be less than needed. Do you seriously believe that a $5000 tax credit or direct government payments will be of any help when health insurance for a family costs upwards of $1200-$1500 a month? Wait until you see the size of the new Govement agency to “oversee” that. Does anyone believe that ANY corporation will contine to offer any healthcare benefits once the goverment offers healthcare or subsidizes it with tax credits? Not very likely. Government intervention other than overseeing and controlling corruption in the existing health care system will destroy our existing healthcare system.
The economy is a great example of the lack of “Government Oversight”. You see how well that is working. Truly another bi-partisan effort over many decades has resulted in this worldwide calamity. Please note that financial systems all over the world including here are being socialized to “fix” them. This is happening under the Republicans in the US now but it will accelerate if the Democrats have any say in it.
Truth is the financial implications of government actions have been ignored for almost 50 years by our politicians. Problems they helped create are now coming together on Social Security, Healthcare, and finally the economy. You see the result. This is the result of government meddling in all three areas over the last 50 years.
We already face the “unintended consequences” as you point out. (At least we hope they were unintended.) The solution is clear. Make the governemt return the money to social security that they squandered. It is Trillions of dollars. Get them out of the healthcare business except for oversight. Re-regulate the economy like it was before. Then punish the crooks on wall street and in government who fell asleep at the wheel. Finally, let the econonic engine fix itself under oversight but without goverment forcing low credit standards on it. There is no free ride.
kanda on October 8, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2