Barack Obama and Mitt Romney said what we expected them to say in last night’s debate. There were a few zingers, a few odd questions from the “undecided” town hall audience members, but each candidate held his own.
To me, the most striking thing to come out of the debate was the behavior of the moderator.
I don’t know much about Candy Crowley. I don’t watch her show. Last night when I tuned in to the debate, Crowley was presenting the introduction. She was strong, engaging, professional. Bravo, I thought. An accomplished woman at the helm.
The narrative took a startling turn when Crowley inserted herself into the candidates’ exchange about our security failure on September 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya.
You may have seen the conversation. It started when audience member Kerry Ladka asked a question about reports the State Department refused requests for extra security in Benghazi. As the dialogue ran on, Obama insisted he called the incident that cost the death of four American citizens including Ambassador Christopher Stevens ”an act of terror” the very next day after the attack. Romney insisted Obama went to Vegas for a fundraiser the very next day after the incident, then took two weeks for his administration to call the attack terrorism.
Romney called Obama on the carpet, and Crowley took it upon herself to defend Obama. Watch here or read the debate transcript.
Remember, Crowley was the supposed to be the moderator. She spoke from a position of authority. The audience laughed at her comment. Obama was indignant. Romney must have been shocked. I certainly was. Crowley tried to clarify her point, but it was too late.
Crowley retracted her statement last night with Anderson Cooper saying Romney was in fact right. Then she retracted her retraction this morning on CNN and The View. Again, it’s too late.
The terrorist attack in Benghazi and Obama’s handling of it are a fresh failing of his administration. Benghazi reflects the kind of Middle East volatility Americans fear most. In Benghazi, we see our national security, foreign policy, religious freedom, military power, good will, and constitutional government intertwined and threatened. We see American interests spilled out in the blood of our people who were killed. We see ourselves in the photos of Stevens’ bruised corpse.
Was Crowley part of an orchestrated effort to help the President save face? She hardly had to be coached.
I’m not even sure she meant to be malicious. Her response, inappropriate and inaccurate as it may be, was the natural outpouring of
fair, unbiased
her beliefs. She didn’t need a conspiracy to dictate her words. She’s entitled to her opinion, but last night she was supposed to be the unbiased moderator. Instead, she tipped the scales.
Does Romney lose? Probably not. Does Obama lose? No, he stands to gain. Does Crowley lose? I wonder if she’ll even be called out for it by her peers. Many of them seem to feel the same way she does. In their eyes, she did no wrong.
The debates are for the benefit of the American voters as we decide how to cast our votes. We expect a fair, level playing field. We want to hear the candidates answer the questions, and we expect the moderator to take extra care not to be or appear to be biased. When the moderator slips and shows us weighted scales, she doesn’t disrespect the candidates alone. She disrespects the electoral process and the voters. She damages the credibility of her profession and of the political process we follow to elect leaders.
When that happens, like it did last night, we the people are the real losers.
She seemed pretty clear that while President Obama did call it an act of terror, that Gov. Romney was also correct in that the White House wasn’t as straight forward as he’s implying. Gov. Romney simply misread the situation and went in for the political kill without having all his ducks in a row. And it blew up in face that night as opposed to the next day. Had Crowley checked Obama I doubt shouts of bias would be coming from so many on the right.
Good point, Lennie. But she didn’t check Obama. To me, that’s telling.
Aimee,
You might be surprised to know I completely agree with you. In a presidential debate of this kind, it is absolutely NOT the role of a moderator to comment on what the candidates are saying. His or her job is to keep the dialogue constructive, on schedule, and moving forward.
Where we don’t see eye to eye is on the notion of liberal bias in the media. Let’s start with what Crowley did. She interjected herself to get to the truth. This is what journalists do. It is not what moderators of presidential debates do. She failed as a moderator in that instance (although, I think she did a much better job reigning in the two candidates and keeping them on track otherwise).
But as to your supposition that there is a liberal bias in the media, in fact, that has been debunked extensively. A study out just this year reviewing presidential media coverage from 1948-2008 revealed (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739164740?ie=UTF8&tag=washpost-style-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0739164740) “when all is said and done, left-leaning reporting is balanced by reporting more favorable to conservatives.”
Further, consider this from recently from Huffington Post:
Here are some facts that reflect recent data (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-hotchkiss/facts-not-liberal-bias_b_1855225.html):
In cable news, Bill O’Reilly has the largest audience, averaging 2.6 million viewers per night in August 2012. He has been the number one rated news program on cable for 10 consecutive years.
FOX also has the 10 top-rated cable news programs.
On Thursday Aug. 30, in prime time, FOX News had nearly nine million viewers. More than twice as many as CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, and CNBC combined. Bill O’Reilly had fives times as many viewers as those same networks. Again, that’s combined.
Fox News also had twice as many viewers as the broadcast networks (9 million vs 4.5 million).
In fact, the media organization that has the most profound penetration into the hearts and minds of Americans is Fox News.
And that’s just TV.
Rush Limbaugh has anywhere from 14 million to 20 million unique listeners a week.
Sean Hannity has about 14 million unique listeners per week.
Michael Savage has about nine million unique listeners.
Laura Ingraham about six million unique listeners.
In fact, nine of the top-10 talk radio shows are hosted by conservative commentators.
And that’s just the radio.
In print, The Wall Street Journal is the largest circulated newspaper in the nation, with a daily average readership of 2.1 million. The New York Times is the third most circulated paper with 1.5 million.
And keep in mind, the WSJ is owned by the same corporation that owns Fox News.
But most importantly, legacy media has already been eclipsed by digital media and social networks such as Twitter as a place where people get their news. Any bias here is a reflection of whom they choose to follow and friend not necessarily the original source. Read this Pew study for more detail: http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/
Lisen
Glad you agree with me about Crowley stepping out of line.
We don’t agree on media bias. Showing more people watch or listen to “conservative” commentators doesn’t disprove liberal bias is rampant in the mainstream media, though it does beg the question “why” more people watch or listen to right-leaning pundits. If you want to talk numbers in news, let’s consider Fox and WSJ, outlets you recognize as more conservative. That’s one television network and one major newspaper up against all the rest that claim to be mainstream but show liberal bias. The argument that coverage is actually more favorable to conservatives is one I heard back in journalism school in the 90s. Common sense tells me that the “debunking” of the myth of liberal bias is as untrue now as it was then–and probably contributes to the problem of liberal bias by covering for it.
The media and the Democratic party are twin sons of different mothers. Neither had any interest in a debate which could make their Messiah look worse. This was theater, the performance was intended to boost Obama’s chances of re-election.
But, I am no fan of Mitt Romney either. Just for the record. I am not grinding my axe.
That being said, although I expected (desired) more CONTENT from Romney, Obama lied and deflected as expected. But no matter how you spin it, prices are rising while wages are falling, and the deficit he promised to cut in half, he doubled.
But as to the effects of the debate: although the initial pundits proclaim an Obama victory, even the polls are showing a decided upswing in Romney support among previously undecided voters. A few more victories like this for Obama, and he can relocate to that home we bought for him in Hawaii (in 2013).
We bought a home for him in Hawaii?