The ABC debate debacle

I couldn't make myself suffer through yet another silly debate, and it seems like that was a good decision. As Media Matters notes, "[n]umerous media figures have criticized George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, moderators of the Democratic presidential debate on ABC, or the subject matter of the event, in part or in whole, as 'shoddy [and] despicable,' 'specious and gossipy,' 'cringe-worthy,' 'banal,' consisting of 'tabloid trivia,' 'flat-out repulsive,' 'embarrassing,' 'seem[ingly] slanted against [Sen. Barack] Obama,' 'shameful,' and 'an outrage.'" Reading the list of questions makes clear what a horrifying event it was.

The problem is the intersection of three factors:

1. The media's commercial incentive to entertain rather than inform;
2. Journalists' professional incentive to display voice, debate the horse race, and avoid "boring" policy issues;
3. Ongoing efforts by almost ever major figure in network news to avoid being accused of liberal bias (for example, Tim Russert going on Rush Limbaugh's show, George Stephanopoulos going on Sean Hannity's show, etc.).

#3 seems to be the most important factor explaining the difference in tone and content between the Republican and Democratic debates. Even Rush Limbaugh admitted yesterday that the questions were harsh.

Comments

[David]

I don't buy the idea that questioners like Russert, Stephanopolis and Matthews -- people, who have actively worked for Democratic politicians -- are effectively favoring the Republicans because they're trying to avoid liberal bias.

Ask yourself this: Would you prefer to have the debates moderated by a Karl Rove who was trying to avoid conservative bias? I think not.

[jcargh]

Would Karl Rove try to avoid right-wing bias? I think not.