Posted on 08/13/2015 12:31:20 PM PDT by upbeat5
Since presidential debates started in 1960, the journalists who are supposed to “moderate” them have increasingly set the agenda and determined the substance of what the public sees. In the first 2016 presidential debate, Fox News’ “moderators” focused on what might embarrass candidates rather than on their record or proposals. Also, they indulged the Republican Establishment’s animus against its least favorite candidate. Though this made for an exciting show, the biggest loser was the public’s interest in understanding candidates and issues. The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.
Choosing the president of the United states on the basis of short answers to questions formulated or chosen by journalists was always a bad idea. It has only gotten worse. Limited to two minutes, as in the League Of Women Voters debates (Fox’s limit was one minute answers and 30 second rebuttals) the candidates can only reprise their canned talking points or the cleverish ads that are the foul staples of modern campaigns. Such parodies of debates demean the candidates, and all of us who watch. Along with the candidates, we the people become pawns in a game between the political consultants, the “moderators,” and the commentators who then tell us who played best.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
And that headline shows we have an astonishing lack of proof readers in the media! “are” should be “Our”. “ow” should be “How”. Yeesh.
Please. Show a little mercy here. The headline was written by a poor Muslim immigrant.
Please go back to Kingergarten and learn how to read and write before you post again.
As far as I know, upbeat5 isn’t Muslim. The language is correct at the linked document.
upbeat5--you do know there is such a thing as copy and paste, right?
All he had to do is copy and paste - it’s perfectly fine at the source.
The article itself has the title correct
The tabloidization of America.
The media was correct,the Freeper posting was wrong.
.
Just you wite, Enry Iggins, just you wite.
” The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.”
I agree 200%. These things have become nothing more than gotcha exercises.
are=our. I’m glad to see someone else do that. Homonyms are evil!
I once wrote an essay on a final exam in an English course in college. The professor asked what our authors thought about x. So I wrote “Are authors...”. He circled it, but I still got a A in the class.
Good grief, that headline!
A ‘well done’ to the author. Two points to consider. The viewer wants to know, the speaker wants to hide.
Lost in translation.
Did they ever learn "cut and paste"?
You got me at “Megyn Kelly Shows...”
Though this made for an exciting show, the biggest loser was the public’s interest in understanding candidates and issues. The public interest would be best served were candidates to question one another. That’s how it was done in Lincoln’s day. We could and should get back to that.
Agree.
As I’ve said, FNC blew a great opportunity to lead the way on hosting debates. They chose to take the lowbrow road, for an attempt hit at Trump and Cruz (by not giving him proper time) and they not only failed, miserably....they failed the viewers.
FNC owes the debate viewers an apology.
Yes they did Jane, your whole post is so right.
FNC owes the debate viewers an apology.
Chatter on the street is that Kelly will be leading another "debate" as if she is doing an interview.
Probably as a hot, sexy [cough] journalist again, not as a moderator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.