Siesta Time: Univision Fumbles First-Ever Spanish Language Presidential Debate

This post, written by Marc Cooper, originally appeared on The Huffington Post

Sunday night's nationally televised presidential debate among the Democratic candidates was the first ever conducted in Spanish. But the hosting network, Univision, handled it as ineptly as if this was the first time anyone had dared to put a pack of candidates before a camera in any language.

Almost everything about it was a dud, rendering the entire exercise little more than a gimmick. It's hard to figure what any Latino voter, or better said any voter, would have gotten out of it. It was back to 1984, format-wise, as if no one at America's largest Spanish-speaking TV network had noticed any shift whatsoever in communications over the last two decades.

The huge live Miami audience, even more than usual in these sort of events, were reduced to mere props. Not even token questions were allowed from the floor. Worse, Univision allowed no other reporters, other than their own two star anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas, any form of participation. So you could forget, Dios Mio, about any Spanish-language bloggers (or citizens) having any shot.

While the questions were supposedly culled from those submitted earlier by Univision viewers, the chosen queries were uniformly non-confrontational and conveniently open-ended - the sort of questions pols dream of. The candidates might as well have been tele-transported to an underhand soft-ball batting cage for 90 minutes. "Are you taking any risks by appearing before a Spanish-speaking audience?" was the first laugher rolled out by Salinas. "Do you support immigration reform?" "Would you make Spanish a second language?" 'What's the most important contribution Latinos make to America?" were some of the other whiffle balls limply pitched.

Univision researchers took no time or effort to ply whatever authentic differences exist among the candidates nor to challenge any of them on the contradictions and waffles that mark their respective records and campaign promises. The closest anything came to a moment of tension was when Senators Clinton and Obama were asked why they, indeed, had voted for construction of a wall along the Mexican border. But even this question was off the mark as it evaded the complicated circumstances of the votes they cast.

The rigidly formatted debate allotted precise amounts of equal time to candidates who are hardly equal. More aggravating, the anchors seemed bereft of any creativity, any spunk, any passion, or for that matter any journalistic sense, as they made no attempt to confront one candidate's views with another. The field wasn't leveled - it was utterly flattened.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

DonateDonate by credit card


Thanks for your support!

Did you enjoy AlterNet this year? Join us! We're offering AlterNet ad-free for 15% off - just $2 per week. From now until March 15th.