New at CJR: All good debate coverage is local?

My new CJR column contrasts the pathologies of national presidential debate coverage with the generally more substantive and informative coverage of two recent debates here in New Hampshire. Here's how it begins:

If you cover politics for a national publication, the story of the debates so far has been President Obama’s supposedly lackluster performance and Vice President Biden’s over-the-top facial expressions. But are outside-the-Beltway journalists so easily sidetracked into amateur theater criticism and body language analysis? Recent evidence from New Hampshire suggests the answer is no. Is there hope for citizens learning something from debate coverage after all?

Read the whole thing for more.

Comments

[David in Cal]

Executive ability is vital for a President or VP, but less so for a legislator. Biden's policy preferences could make him a good Senator, if one agreed with his policies. But, his bizarre behavior during the debate suggests that he's unqualified for a top executive position.

Media were therefore correct to focus their VP debate reports on Biden's antics.

[David in Cal]

Brendan suggested that Biden's unusual conduct consisted merely of facial expressions and body language, when he wrote,

the story of the debates so far has been...and Vice President Biden’s over-the-top facial expressions.

However, Brendan's own link to the WSJ says Biden did a great deal more than make faces:

Mr. Biden often smirked and rolled his eyes as Mr. Ryan spoke or laughed at comments. He frequently interrupted his challenger, saying "that's not true" or calling statements "a bunch of malarkey."
...
smirking, sighing, pointing, interrupting and badgering (emphasis added)

[David in Cal]

Comments on Brendan's prior post are closed, so I'll put a comment here.

Brendan considered the charge that the last monthly jobs report might have understated the unemployment level. He says such a charge is "baseless", "unsubstantiated", a "conspiracy theory", a "myth", a "false claim", not "plausible", and not a "pre-election dirty trick". How does Brendan know these things? Yes, the charge is unsubstantiated. However, Brendan provided no basis to conclude that the charge is implausible, let alone false.

Brendan's certainty takes a hit, when one considers that a a recent weekly governent report did understate unemployment. And, the official whose agency under-reported the unemployment stats was an Obama campaign donor.

Since one Obama supporter under-reported unemployment figures, it seems not implausible to suspect that some other Obama supporter might have done so as well.