Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Are Tim Russert and Brian Williams the Worst Debate Moderators Ever?

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 11:14 AM on January 16, 2008.


The candidates keep getting better in these debates. The moderators keep getting worse.
nnrussert2way060130.300w
Williams, Russert

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Election 2008 in your
mailbox!

 

While political observers are understandably divided about who "won" last night's Democratic debate in Las Vegas, it seems everyone who watched can come together in agreement on one underlying point: the moderators were truly awful.

About a half-hour into the debate, an angry man started shouting, interrupting the event while security personnel intervened. Usually, these protestors are easy to dismiss as random nuts, but in this case, the heckler had a legitimate beef.

About 22 minutes into the Nevada Democratic debate, a heckler in the audience interrupted the proceedings, saying "these are f**cking race-based questions coming from you two, these are race-based questions..."
There was silence from the candidates and the moderators for about eight seconds with no mention of the heckler. Tim Russert, continued with his question for Sen. Hillary Clinton which focused on her characterization that Sen. Obama "is raising false hopes."
I've seen debates in which hecklers jeer candidates, and I've seen debates in which hecklers take a stand for one issue or another, but this was the first debate I've seen in which a heckler went after a moderator. Worse, I think the guy was probably right.

Within a few minutes of the interruption, Ezra said, "It's almost impossible for me to convey the damage Tim Russert and Brian Williams are doing to the republic this evening.... It's literally the worst moderation I've yet seen. It's not moderation. It's trivialization. 28 minutes in, there's not been a question about any issue, any cause, any problem."

I'm not sure if I'm prepared to say it was literally the worst I've seen -- the CNN debate in November was pretty offensive -- but by any reasonable measure, last night was breathtakingly bad.

The first question of any substance came 40 minutes into the event. 40. The entire debate was two hours lone, which means Tim Russert, Brian Williams, and NBC's Natalie Morales (who was relegated to reading emails to the candidates) spent the first third of the debate covering nothing but process, politics, and horserace.

Russert, in particular, wanted to explore the race-based dispute between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in extraordinary detail. I've seen some suggestions that Obama and Clinton looked tired last night. My take was entirely different -- they were bored by questions about an issue they were prepared to forget.

At one point, Morales asked John Edwards, "[W]hat is a white male to do running against these historic candidacies?" People laughed, and if you listened closely, you could Clinton say, "Poor John." I agreed wholeheartedly, except I was also thinking, "Poor us."

On and on it went. Robert Johnson. "Buddy system." The black vote. The woman vote. "Likable enough." Russert added: "I want to ask each of you quickly, your greatest strength, your greatest weakness." I half-expected him to ask each of them to explain what kind of tree they'd be.

When the debate finally got to the substance, the moderators were hardly any better. Russert screwed up the Iraq/2013 point badly. The ROTC question was silly. Russert inexplicably suggested Edwards shouldn't talk to Musharraf in Pakistan. The last question of the night asked when the candidates decided to run for president -- as if that were important.

The candidates keep getting better in these debates. The moderators keep getting worse.

Digg!

Tagged as: media, clinton, obama, edwards, democratic debate, las vegas, russert, williams

Steve Benen is a freelance writer/researcher and creator of The Carpetbagger Report. In addition, he is the lead editor of Salon.com's Blog Report, and has been a contributor to Talking Points Memo, Washington Monthly, Crooks & Liars, The American Prospect, and the Guardian.


Franken-Coleman Update: Norm Returns To Senate As Non-Senator
Al Franken, has been declared the winner of the Minnesota contest but has yet to be sworn in as court battles continue.
Post by Ryan Grim. January 21, 2009.
A Bar Stool View of This Moment in American History
Some reactions to Obama's inauguration speech (which, yes, I watched in a bar).
Post by Joshua Holland. January 20, 2009.
Franken-Coleman Recount: How Far Will It Go?
Will Norm be able to take this all the way to the conservative-controlled US Supreme Court?
Post by Phoenix Woman. January 10, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Finally...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jan 16, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People are maybe starting to get it: The problem doesn't start with the candidates themselves, but with the media which is a function of corporate power, which is keeping the two parties from having any candidates that might actually vote for OUR interests as a nation rather than the interests of the corporate structure.

Of course there were no questions about issues for the first half hour. Corporate media doesn't want you thinking about the issues at all. Instead they want you to be wholly absorbed by the Hillary Vs. Obama show. When they do bother to talk to non-corporate approved candidates they do things like asking Kucinich about him seeing a UFO.

A lot of people have known this for a long time, but it seems to be a lesson many more in the mainstreams of american culture are begining to learn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Finally... Posted by: Lauren
» Don't just read up...ACT Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Finally... Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Finally... Posted by: anna132
Why do we allow media personalities to moderate these "debates"?
Posted by: rancespergl on Jan 16, 2008 12:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a question no one asks:

WHY DO WE ALLOW THESE MEDIA PEOPLE TO MODERATE THESE SO-CALLED "DEBATES"?

What happened to the wizened professorial-type or the ex-head of some obscure debating society enforcing actual rules?

CORPORATE MEDIA RIGS THE GAME AND THEIR HYPOCRISY IS SHOWING, EGREGIOUSLY.

STOP THE BOBBLE-HEADS!

P.S. Excuse me for shouting. I've had too much coffee and I'm really getting fed-up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The rotten liars who work for Propaganda Inc. are finally getting their due
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 16, 2008 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Moderators?" More like corporate media jackals. Lying, dishonest, corrupt windbags who can't even remember when they first sold their souls to their corporate masters.

Recall all the unease over Karl Rove's "push polling" strategy? That's where you call registered voters, pretend to be an "impartial polling agency", and then proceed to ask a series of loaded questions intended to change the target's opinions.

For example, you'd hire someone with a heavy Mexican accent to ask questions about immigration in an aggressive manner, thereby lending credence to anti-immigrant rants "performed" by Lou Dobbs and Republican candidates. Clever little monkeys, aren't they?

These "presidential debates" are shining examples of push-polling in practice - loaded questions intended to support the corporate media agenda.

Heckle away!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are We Surprised?
Posted by: dustinblythe on Jan 16, 2008 4:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are we, who read Alternet, surprised that the networks are less concerned with supplying competent moderators than they are with getting their on-air personalities "over" with the public?

Corporate "synergy", branding, and product placement are worse now than ever and there is no end in sight. It is no coincidence that the debate was aired on MSNBC (a cable channel which, conveniently, did not have to adhere to FCC rules which would have allowed Dennis Kucinich to participate, unlike NBC) using NBC "talent". Although there are many who could have fit the bill as moderators, only those which NBC/MSNBC wished to push made it in front of the cameras. To feature anyone other than Williams or Russert would be a slight, real or perceived, to their standing as news "experts" or Washington heavy hitters.

NBC is not alone. Most would agree that Wolf Blitzer's turn as moderator of the CNN debates ended up with us hearing more from him that we did from the candidates. In the sporting world, ABC's partnership with ESPN has resulted in ESPN personalities like Mike Greenberg ending up hosting a game show (!) on ABC and talking head Tony Kornheiser pushing NFL veteran Joe Theismann out of the Monday Night Football booth. CBS drove one loyal viewer (me) away from "60 Minutes" by including a spot in the ensemble for Katie Couric as part of her CBS News deal in an attempt to add some hard news gravitas to her resume. Not to mention some free advertising for her role as evening news anchor.

To paraphrase John Edwards in Tuesday night's debate, when the networks foist their personalities on us do you think they want something or are they interested in good journalism?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

i wouldn't know...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jan 16, 2008 7:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i didn't watch...i boycotted...besides, i've never been a fan of the three ring circus, anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-Obama debate
Posted by: truegreencore on Jan 17, 2008 2:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was personally amazed at how much the moderators seemed to target Obama. From the questions highlighting Obama's weaknesses asked to Hillary, ruling that discussion with Edwards counted as his question, to Brian Williams 6 or 7 different times after Obama was clearly done answering saying, "time's up". And, how nice of them to take this precious air-time to ensure everyone knows about the racist bullsh*& being spread about Obama on the internet. I was screaming at my tv, and Obama wasn't even my first choice. (I'm an Iowan).

I agree with the heckler in the crowd, the media managed to perpetuate Hillary's disgusting attempt to make Barack the stereotypical angry black man, and we got 40 minutes of race questions. I think this may be the downfall of Obama's run for the presidency.

Of course, Edwards didn't get as much time. But, I would've taken that over the smears.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Used to favor NBC and MSNBC over the other
Posted by: bettyn on Jan 17, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
networks, but NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC have really gotten on my nerves this past week. (Will someone PLEASE get rid of these damned reality shows? Does the rest of this country enjoy the unsuspecting, or, in some cases, stupid participants in these things being SAVAGED THAT much?)

The only two critters worth watching anymore on this MSM mess are Keith, and to a lesser extent, Dan Abrams.Kudos also to Mika Brezinzki for refusing to contribute to the media uproar over Paris Hilton. (I probably misspelled her last name, and after 31 years of being married to someone with an East European last name, I should probably know better.)

I don't know where else to go for TV news anymore, especially since a Bush toady has taken over public broadcasting. Guess it's the internet for me from now on. (You go, Keith!)

If Chris Matthews doesn't stop making snarky remarks about the "she devil", I'm gonna vote for her against my better judgement. I'm just fed up!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I ignore most
Posted by: Misha2 on Jan 17, 2008 4:11 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of MSM and I certainly don't watch anything that they call a debate because they aren't and it is a waste of time on everyone's part. These talking head "journalists" like Russert and Williams just are making fools of themselves and the entire campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're right - they were bad, but don't be fooled into
Posted by: NotNeoCon on Jan 17, 2008 6:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thinking that they weren't supposed to be bad. These two guys are nothing but corporate whores. The orders to them from their corporate handlers were, 1) "cause no further harm! 2) Do not dwelve on the economy or the voting public may learn that we screwed them - again."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Russert AND WILLIAMS ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Jan 17, 2008 7:06 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AND they are just doing as they were told. Remember, approval ratings go like this: Bush at 25 to 30 percent, congress at 15 to 20 percent, and the media at 7 percent. That is one out of fourteen.

You would think that the advertisers would expect an atomosphere of 100 percent approval. It seems not be a problem for them. They fully approve of the lies that we are being told. That is the message that they want told. They do, of course, need to be disciplined at the cash register.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some Real History!!!
Posted by: graffen48 on Jan 17, 2008 7:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe, if some of these media idiots would do their homework, they would stop fawning over these "historical" candidates.(Clinton&Obama) Shirley Chisolm has got them both beat. She ran for president and was both a woman and black.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Some Real History!!! Posted by: peacefullaim
Call Me Pariniod but......
Posted by: tommy1957 on Jan 22, 2008 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am under the impression that the media is trying to piss off democrat voters into not voting so some fucking nut case republican wins. My fellow Democrats; let us not fall for this attempt by the once unbiased media to destroy our destiny to take the white house once again and restore some dignity to this great nation. It could be that they are afraid that they too will be discovered and found culpable for the lies that lead us to the "Sand War". I suspect the media was in on the whole lie and deception. It doesn't matter who is the eventual nominee as long as we win and win big; white house, senate, congress, state houses, and legislative control. Then let the impeachments trials begin and end the misery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]