Hate the Debates? Don't blame the media, blame the Dems and the GOP

[nichomachus]

The presidential debates were originated by the League of Women Voters. In the beginning, they weren't half bad -- independent and with some tough questions.

Then, in 1988, the two parties -- or rather than consultants and lobbyists who run them -- decided they just wanted to make the debates part of their campaign strategies. At that point, sensing disaster, the League dropped out, predicting that the debates would quickly become just stupid campaign crap.

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

It looks like last night's debate proved the League's point.

So, it was the parties themselves who, by punching the League in the face, created the void that was filled by the corporate media.

[endarkenment]

1. Plenty of blame to spare. Media does not get off the hook.

Absolutely nothing prevented those two ass-clowns from asking pertinent questions about substantive issues. They chose not to. They chose instead to play gotcha!

[nichomachus]

2. Their behavior was predictable

The problem was in leaving the way open for them to perform.

It's like leaving your new puppy alone in the house all day and then being upset when he piddles on the floor.

The debates never should have been turned over to the corporations -- period. These clowns are just corporate employees,and they will behave like corporate employees everywhere do. They will serve the desires of the people who sign their paychecks. Don't expect anything else of them, unless you're signing their paycheck. That would be like expecting some vice president of GM to tell you what a piece of shit a Chevrolet is. That just isn't going to happen.

[endarkenment]

4. Oh I agree with that part.

Why do our candidates sign up for floggings?

[KSinTX]

7. Obama hasn't yet signed on for #22 in NC and shouldn't n/t

[susankh4]

3. Good to know!

Thanks for the post.

K&R

[KSinTX]

5. Great point K&R n/t

[parasim]

6. I pretty much agree, except that I would add two words to your headline.

Don't blame just the media, also blame the Dems and the GOP.

You can't let the media off that easily. The media has become the vehicle the campaigns use to do their dirty work. The media doesn't have to do this, they certainly could be above that, but they've chosen not to, as was so apparent in last night's "debate".

[nichomachus]

8. I don't think you understand the role of the media

In the olden days, the media -- then called "the press" -- used to be fairly independent and was seen as a counterbalance against the government and the political parties.

However, that has changed with the concentration of the media outlets into the hands of about 10 major corporations.

The media is now nothing more than a public relations agency for the corporations -- nothing more than that.

So, to "blame" them for serving the interests of the owners, instead of serving our interests, is really being stuck in the past.

Maybe you don't like the idea that the media -- and their employees -- just serve as a public relations group for corporate interests, but it's the way it is. Looked at in that way, they performed admirably last night. They served the interests of the corporatocracy. That's what they are paid to do.

This is why concentration of the media is such an important issue and is a clear danger to democracy.

This is also why we need to get money -- particularly corporate money -- out of our political process. Until we do, what you saw last night will continue -- no matter how much people scream about it.

[TacticalPeek]

9. Interesting reminder.

So often when we meet the enemy, they have a family resemblance.

‘There is no need to sally forth, for it remains true that those things which make us human are, curiously enough, always close at hand. Resolve, then, that on this very ground, with small flags waving and tiny blasts of tiny trumpets, we shall meet the enemy, and not only may he be ours, he may be us.’

http://www.igopogo.com/final_authority.htm

[InsultComicDog]

10. Nuh-uh

The media does not get off the hook here. They have abrogated their responsibility to the public and have allowed themselves to become tools of the wingnuts.

[nichomachus]

12. Please make an argument

Please explain why they have a "responsibility" to the public. I'm serious. We say things like that. But they are just giant corporations -- and under the law they are required to do what will maximize corporate profits.

This is something a lot of people don't understand. Under US law corporate executives have an obligation to maximize return to shareholders. Period. They have no other obligation. If they do anything that minimizes that return, they can be sued or even criminally prosecuted.

If we don't like that, we need to change the law.

[InsultComicDog]

25. Broadcasters have a conflicting obligation

stemming from the Communications Act of 1934.

[nichomachus]

26. And what obligation is that? And is it still operational?

Remember, a lot of their "obligations," such as fairness, were done away with long ago.

[crispini]

11. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

:kick:

[crispini]

13. HERE is the link to the Commission on Presidential Debates

http://www.debates.org/

Let's write them nastygrams!

I'd make this an OP but I'm all out.

[crispini]

14. I'm working on a petition. What do you think?

Petition to Restore the League of Women Voters as the Hosts of the Presidential Debates

To: The League of Women Voters
Democratic Presidential Candidates and their Campaign Staff
Republican Presidential Candidates and their Campaign Staff
Commission on Presidential Debates

We, the undersigned, through this letter, request that you return complete control of the American Presidential debates to the League of Women Voters, and abolish the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The CPD debates have been called “news conferences” and “a reckless endangerment of Democracy.” Furthermore, the most recent Democratic Primary debate on ABC has completely exposed the modern American debate as a travesty and a sham.

The debates must be administered by an impartial, non-profit, citizen-friendly organization. The League of Women Voters is that organization.

Signed,

--- What do you think I should add to this?

[nichomachus]

15. Well . . .

You'd need to get Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, Karl Rove, and Roger Ailes to sign on to that first. These are the guys -- not them personally, but their analogs -- that ruined things in the first place.

[crispini]

16. Hey, I'm mad and I want to make a stink of this.

If we, the public, make a big stink out of it, then the campaigns (and their surrogates and brainiacs) will have to at least CONSIDER this.

[redqueen]

17. Penn & McAuliffe ain't shit. DEAN is the one in charge of the DNC.

And as such, he's the one set to deal with the LWV.

Those two complicit corporatists are overpaid dingleberries and they're about to be washed off the ass of this country.

[frazzled]

18. LWV hasn't sponsored a debate since 1984--they withdrew in 1988

So what's your point? It's certainly not about THIS election.

Besides, this was not a Presidential debate--just a party primary debate (I don't believe LWV ever sponsored those).

Were you born in 1988?

[nichomachus]

19. That's what I said

I said they withdrew in 1988.

What it has to do with this election is that the debates, in 1988, just became a campaign tool organized by the corporate media and the corporate campaign consultants.

What does my age have to do with anything?

[frazzled]

20. The point is ...

that we have known the debates are media events for a long time--two decades. Yet some media outlets do it better than others. There have been some relatively substantive debates, with a minimum of gotcha and tabloid (provided by Sean Hannity). This was not one of them. The long-absent LWV debates--which by the way were never for primaries anyway--are really not a story anymore.

There have been 26 debates in this primary--21 of them televised. Even Timmeh Russert did not live up to the scurrilous, empty-headedness of this one.

Put the blame where it belongs: on the MEDIA. They didn't necessarily act like assholes in 1988. And there weren't ever 26 of them for the primaries.

[nichomachus]

21. The problem is

In 1988, there was still some independence in the media, although it was beginning to fragment with the beginning of media concentration.

"The media" is a far different animal today than it was in 1988. Today, the so-called media are merely departments of major corporations. Expecting independence or public leadership from them is like expecting independence from the PR department of ExxonMobil.

You can scream all you want, but it ain't gonna happen.

[frazzled]

24. No, the problem is ...

You've said not to blame the media, blame the party instead. Several problems:

(1) The LWV statement you quoted was about the campaigns (not the parties) in 1988. Those were different campaigns.

(2) You've now changed your position--dropping your dictum that the media is not to blame and now saying the media is different than it was back then and hopeless (you are saying EXACTLY what I said now).

So just admit it: we should blame the media for the low-level of last night's debate. We should specifically blame ABC. The problem is PRECISELY the media--and no dragging in of decades-old statements from an antiquated group regarding presidential (not primary) debates--is going to change that.

[knixphan]

22. wow. that makes sense.

[knixphan]

23. I guess you could call it

the privitization of debate?