Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps? (ABC Edition)

From all accounts ABC disgraced itself at last night's debate in a manner much worse than the manner in which the substance-free and ignorant network questioners usually disgrace themselves.

Greg Mitchell:

Clinton-Obama Debate: ABC Decides Top Issues Facing Americans Are Gaffes, Flag Pins and '60s Radicals: In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the health care and mortgage crises, the overall state of the economy and dozens of other pressing issues had to wait for their few moments in the sun as Obama was pressed to explain his recent "bitter" gaffe and relationship with Rev. Wright (seemingly a dead issue) and not wearing a flag pin while Clinton had to answer again for her Bosnia trip exaggerations. Then it was back to Obama to defend his slim association with a former '60s radical -- a question that came out of rightwing talk radio and Sean Hannity on TV, but delivered by former Bill Clinton aide Stephanopolous. This approach led to a claim that Clinton's husband pardoned two other '60s radicals. And so on...

Tom Shales:

In Pa. Debate, The Clear Loser Is ABC: When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates' debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News.... Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances...

I propose that everybody associated with the debate at ABC leave journalism and find another job where they can be socially productive--replacing bunnies as animal testing subjects for cosmetics comes to mind as perhaps the best use...

Comments

[AAustin]

Charles Gibson's question on capital gains taxes was a low point, highlighting his attachment to loopy voodoo economics. At least Obama noted that stock market trends matter, but it was disappointing that neither candidate went after the nonsensical premise of the question.

[elliottg]

This is simply journalistic malpractice without any recourse and the whining of the "journalists" about the mean bloggers reminds me of the way doctors speak of trial attorneys.

[Neal]

The fix is in, the swing is to McCain. No matter what McCain does or says-he da man!!

Today, in a speech, Mara Liasson (NPR, Fox) said that McCain is the real candidate of change, not Obama or Clinton.

She said it was because of his courageous, counter-Republican, stands on Iraq, taxes, torture, campaign financing, etc., etc!!

Obama and Clinton, meanwhile, represent the same old Democrat policies and goals.

[rea]

"substance-free and ignorant network questioners"

Substance-free? They sure sounded like they were under the influence of controlled substances to me!

[anne]

For whatever demented reason, I watched for about 30 minutes. ABC was a disgrace, even beyond the extremely low expectations I have for ABC. Network analysis is impossible to tolerate, and that includes public radio and television.

[anne]

Barack Obama will be the candidate, but there is need to better define policy and be willing to borrow several sensitive ideas from John Edwards and to look to more sensitive advisers.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html

April 17, 2008

Who’s Bitter Now?
By LARRY M. BARTELS

Princeton, N.J.

DURING Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia, Barack Obama once more tried to explain what he meant when he suggested earlier this month that small-town people of modest means “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of frustration with their place in a changing American economy. Mr. Obama acknowledged that his wording offended some voters, but he also reiterated his impression that “wedge issues take prominence” when voters are frustrated by “difficult times.”

Last week in Terre Haute, Ind., Mr. Obama explained that the people he had in mind “don’t vote on economic issues, because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them.” He added: “So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

This is a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count.

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

For the sake of concreteness, let’s define the people Mr. Obama had in mind as people whose family incomes are less than $60,000 (an amount that divides the electorate roughly in half), who do not have college degrees and who live in small towns or rural areas. For the sake of convenience, let’s call these people the small-town working class, though that term is inevitably imprecise. In 2004, they were about 18 percent of the population and about 16 percent of voters.

For purposes of comparison, consider the people who are their demographic opposites: people whose family incomes are $60,000 or more, who are college graduates and who live in cities or suburbs. These (again, conveniently labeled) cosmopolitan voters were about 11 percent of the population in 2004 and about 13 percent of voters. While admittedly crude, these definitions provide a systematic basis for assessing the accuracy of Mr. Obama’s view of contemporary class politics.

Small-town, working-class people are more likely than their cosmopolitan counterparts, not less, to say they trust the government to do what’s right. In the 2004 National Election Study conducted by the University of Michigan, 54 percent of these people said that the government in Washington can be trusted to do what is right most of the time or just about always. Only 38 percent of cosmopolitan people expressed a similar level of trust in the federal government.

Do small-town, working-class voters cast ballots on the basis of social issues? Yes, but less than other voters do. Among these voters, those who are anti-abortion were only 6 percentage points more likely than those who favor abortion rights to vote for President Bush in 2004. The corresponding difference for the rest of the electorate was 27 points, and for cosmopolitan voters it was a remarkable 58 points. Similarly, the votes cast by the cosmopolitan crowd in 2004 were much more likely to reflect voters’ positions on gun control and gay marriage.

Small-town, working-class voters were also less likely to connect religion and politics. Support for President Bush was only 5 percentage points higher among the 39 percent of small-town voters who said they attended religious services every week or almost every week than among those who seldom or never attended religious services. The corresponding difference among cosmopolitan voters (34 percent of whom said they attended religious services regularly) was 29 percentage points....

[save_the_rustbelt]

This election cycle, for the most part, has been embarassing.

The media is certainly one of the many causes.

(I have a question. The cable channels parade all of the young talking heads as "Republican strategists" and "Democratic strategiests." What do these info heads do for a living? Do they all work for RNC and DNC? Such drivel.)

[albrt]

I'm glad to see other folks noticing that McPublic Broadcasting has adopted a news model that is basically indistinguishable from the corporate media.

[DrSteveB]

Not just capital gains, but also the social security "crisis." Alas, Obama has bought into this bit of mainstream wisdom too about needing to raise taxes on upper middle class salaried folk. No distinction made on social security (no crisis), and medicare (crisis that need single payer to fix).

[centrist]

Capital gains question with a faulty premise! As was question about Iran going nuclear! It seems that both hosts and the candidates let the NIE about Iran go right down the memory hole!

[Emma Anne]

Dissolve the media and elect a new one.

[c.l. ball]

Gibson was a complete idiot -- a goddamn fuck'n stupid idiot. The capital gains question -- history shows as it rises revenue declines -- was one of the most appallingly ignorant questions ever asked. Except for all the others.

Gibson and Steph. made Wolf Blitzer look like Bertrand Russell.

[Dave]

What made me yell at the TV screen was that Gibson was allowed to repeat that stupid capital gains argument twice, and no one called him on it. G.H.W. Bush once compared it to "selling dollar bills for 70 cents each."

[Chris Brown]

"replacing bunnies as animal testing subjects for cosmetics comes to mind as perhaps the best use..."

Good one.

[save_the_rustbelt]

They let former Clinton advisor Steph-boy participate? Holy crap.

The Democrats are trying to self destruct so we can have John "Endless War" McCain as President for 4 years. A man who knows nothing about the economy. A man who, when he is tired, looks like a coronary waiting to happen.

Someone needs to save the Democrats from themselves.

It will certainly not be the media.

[suitable]

A friend told me that, well, the moderation and questions might better have been left to Jerry Springer.

fivethirtyeight.com speculates that this debate was more for superdelegates than for undecided Pennsylvanians, who are few.

But (I speculate) to improve the chances that the contest will be close (and sell newspapers?), it was probably a good idea for the MSM [main-stream-media] to move the "important questions" line closer to the wingnut that makes Goldwater look like a humanist.

[Rowena]

Anne, it is interesting that you posted a whole editorial without comment. Was it supposed to speak for itself? What I found interesting about the blog comments on the article when it appeared in the NYT several days ago, was that virtually everyone said the guy didn't know what the hell he was talking about, and a number of people asked him what his credentials were to speak for people of low economic means.

Virtually EVEYONE, including the voters of Pennsylvania when asked, had no objection whatsoever to the "bitter" part of Obama's remarks--they all said it sounded just about right.

[Ken Houghton]

I strongly suggest that you owe the rabbits an apology, Brad.

I also note that, given the amount of makeup worn by the average ABC television "news" personality (even leaving the two Soft Focus Only Women out of the equation), having them test cosmetics would not be good for the rest of the world.

It's roughly equivalent to letting a drug company test its latest finding in the most controlled circumstances with the healthiest of test subjects and then declaring that, since that test went fine, the company cannot be sued. (Oh, wait...)

[Neal]

Who can resist the wisdom of Fafblog...

(quote)

That's why Giblets is so certain this final crippling blow to the Obama candidacy will be the finalest and most crippling of them all! By implying that the economic immiseration of America's rural underclass has made them somehow unhappy, Obama has alienated America's heartland! "Oh but Giblets how can you tell, the polls don't seem to have changed much" you say because you are stupid and elitist and hate the hard-working people of the American plains. Giblets doesn't need to wait for "polls" or "data" or "actual facts" when he has the sound judgment of real authentic heartland folk like Chris Matthews and George Will and Hillary Clinton!2 In fact Giblets will go so far as to predict right now that if Obama doesn't win Pennsylvania by fifty points next week it will be entirely because of this. Or the bowling thing, or the scary black pastor. Or Giblets's constant feverish attempts to make this stuff matter more to voters than the fact that they're stupidly poor. It shouldn't be that hard to do, Giblets hears these people are pretty bitter.

(end quote)

[Neal]

The state of the perception of the economy, February 2008, as recorded in Northwest Area Foundation survey:

http://programs.nwaf.org/pr/nwaf/info/document/2008_National_Executive_Summary.pdf

People rating the economic conditions in their own community

The categories- excellent, good, only fair, poor

Urban-7,33,45,14
Suburban-8,43,34,14
Small City-3,43,38,15
Town-4,33,36,26
Rural-4,33,38,24

Overall-6,36,38,18

36% of the people surveyed said they worried MOST or ALL of the time whether they could pay their bills based on their income. 35% of the people surveyed said that they worried SOME of the time whether they could pay their bills based on their income.

In "Towns" 62% think the economy is "only fair", or "poor".
In "Rural" 62% think the economy is "only fair", or "poor".

Sounds like fertile ground for "bitterness".

[nobodyinparticular]

My own personal, paranoid view of the MSM is that they are purposefully focused on trying to make the Democratic campaign petty and divisive in a desperate attempt to keep McSame viable as a contender in the election. I am even willing to believe that they manufactured the notion (polls) that a significant number of Democratic voters will vote for McSame over their favorite Democratic candidate if he/she doesn't get the nomination as a means of promoting and legitimizing the idea of defection. Count on the MSM to way in heavily during the pre-election period with McSame friendly and Obama swift-boating storylines.

[non-lawyer]

OT - this just in from Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better University

Found this over at Huffington Post and thought it apropos of the Yoo/Berkeley situation:

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality - Dante

[anne]

Giblets knows all.

[RW]

Yes, Giblets for Secretary of State, or possibly, Defense, or possibly ...well, it doesn't matter, Giblets is clearly superior to anyone currently pretending to run the show and, quite possibly, anyone who wishes to run it in the future: Is not life a Cabaret old chum; well isn't it?

Am I the only one who hears the echo of Kurt Weill?

[Bob]

Mr. DeLong,

Have you looked at the recent stock performance of media companies? It seems that their valuation erodes with their competence.

Bob

[Brooks]

Thanks for that post, Brad. Gibson and Stephanopolous were disgraceful with their "tabloid" type questions (to use Eugene Robinson's apt descriptor) for almost half the debate.

And Gibson insisting -- twice -- that capital gains tax cuts generate higher revenues, and insisting that the candidates respond based on that false premise, is just outrageous. Is it too much to ask that a moderator check with an expert on some matter -- in this case a...ya' know...an ECONOMIST -- before insisting on some "fact" and demanding a response based on that "fact"??!! (Cap gains tax cuts can increase revenues in the short term due to the unlocking effect as more appreciated assets are sold and gains realized, but even conservative economist Greg Mankiw (former Chairman of W Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, advisor to the Romney campaign) estimated that the ultimate revenue feedback is only 50%). Mankiw said:

"In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing." http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

Did you hear that, Charlie Gibson? A revenue-feedback of only 50%, "well under 100 percent", does not equal increased revenues. Do your f--king homework!

[SelenesMom]

This lousy excuse for a debate made me so mad, I almost wanted to JOIN the Weather Underground. Having been up to that moment blissfully unaware of that smear campaign, I couldn't begin to fathom why all of a sudden Barack was yelling about Bill pardoning whoever he may have pardoned.

[jeff hoffman]

Wish I hadn't been working during the debates. I would like to have watched the candidates shred Charlie Gibson and the Republican myth about capital gains not once but twice. What an opportunity! I imagine that they took full advantage of it.