ABC News Ripped for Debate Moderation

The big loser in last night’s Clinton/Obama debate, at least in the eyes of media critics, was ABC News.

Tom Shales, in the Washington Post, gives a thorough and fair critique of what ABC’s Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos did wrong. Ignoring the aspects that were outside the moderator’s control such as timing and number of commercial breaks, there was still a lot to complain about.

One of Shale’s primary complaints – one in which I am whole hearted agreement – was the waste of almost an hour of the two hour debate rehashing the “controversies” that have already been beaten to death in the news media. Asking Senator Obama to once again address the “bitter” comment and his former pastor’s statements from the pulpit was a complete waste of the candidates time as well as the time devoted to the debate on the part of watchers who really want to hear from the candidates.

That hour was well summed up by Shale:

“It’s not the first time I made a misstatement that was mangled up, and it won’t be the last,” said Obama, with refreshing candor. But candor is dangerous in a national campaign, what with network newsniks waiting for mistakes or foul-ups like dogs panting for treats after performing a trick. The networks’ trick is covering an election with as little emphasis on issues as possible, then blaming everyone else for failing to focus on “the issues.”

Over at Gather.com, Samuel Gerace Sr. had more to say about the media after the debate than about the candidates.

The “debate” last night was very revealing, no not about the position of the candidates on the real issues which challenge the country today after the disastrous but the trustworthiness of the media’s objectives in the moderating the questions put to the candidates. Charlie and George were a veritable disgrace to the intelligence of any person wishing to see the candidate’s positions on a number of subjects which are hobbling our democracy. (emphasis added) For example a few of those fundamental issues are: ethics in the executive and legislative branches of government, a detailed plan to yes, regulate Wall Street’s insatiable hunger for greed and profit, changing the budgetary allocations so that education, health and economic needs are properly addressed, and finally a balanced budget amendment to collar deficit spending and mortgaging the future of the country to China, Saudi Arabia and Japan.

I know the debates are not drawing American Idol size viewing audiences, but to me that seems to indicate tha tthe networks handling the debates should focus more on the issues and less on the normal media circus surrounding the campaigns. We can get that everyday.

At least John McCain is burying his own campaign in appalling statements like the one he made recently when he essentially stated that he would, as president, hand over his Commander In Chief powers to Gen. Petraeus.

When asked whether he would divert U.S. troops from Iraq to Afghanistan in order to quash the resurgent Taliban and capture Osama Bin Laden he responded with “I would not do that unless Gen. Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that.”

There are several things both wrong and a bit insane about that answer, not the least of which is that Gen. Petraeus himself has begged off making that kind of call in Senate hearings that McCain himself attended earlier this month recognizing that such decisions MUST come from higher up the chain of command.

Slate.com’s Fred Kaplan has a nice analysis of this foreign policy preview from Senator McCain in an article titled I Don’t Know. Go Ask Petraeus. McCain’s appalling answer to a question about national-security policy.