Subscribe by RSSGibson, Stephanopoulos taking criticism for the ABC debate
The reviews are in, and they’re not good, not good in the least for the ABC News Democratic debate last night. The debate moderators, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are taking the most on the chin from media critics and reporters. Apparently the audience in the room was none too pleased with them at the time either.
Here’s a report on that from Fox News:
Critics are panning ABC News for its performance at the Democratic presidential debate Wednesday night. Even moderator Charlie Gibson recognized that it wasn’t going well.
Many media critics gave ABC poor reviews, arguing that the debate focused not on policy, but on gaffes by both candidates that have made the news in the last few weeks. The debate was the last to be held before Pennsylvania voters go to the polls on Tuesday to determine who will get the majority of the 158 delegates from that state.
Among the worst offenses to media analysts and viewers was the number of commercial breaks taken, including one just minutes into the two-hour telecast, immediately after Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made their opening statements.
Gibson later earned jeers for taking a break shortly before the end of the program. Boos could be heard, and Gibson threw up his hands in defeat.
“Oh,” he said with a nervous laugh to co-moderator George Stephanopoulos. “The crowd is turning on me, the crowd is turning on me.”
Video of Gibson getting heckled:
The audience may have been mild compared to this review from the Washington Post:
When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.
For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.
The fact is, cable networks CNN and MSNBC both did better jobs with earlier candidate debates. Also, neither of those cable networks, if memory serves, rushed to a commercial break just five minutes into the proceedings, after giving each candidate a tiny, token moment to make an opening statement. Cable news is indeed taking over from network news, and merely by being competent.
Gibson sat there peering down at the candidates over glasses perched on the end of his nose, looking prosecutorial and at times portraying himself as a spokesman for the working class. Blunderingly he addressed an early question, about whether each would be willing to serve as the other’s running mate, “to both of you,” which is simple ineptitude or bad manners. It was his job to indicate which candidate should answer first. When, understandably, both waited politely for the other to talk, Gibson said snidely, “Don’t all speak at once.”
For that matter, the running-mate question that Gibson made such a big deal over was decidedly not a big deal — especially since Wolf Blitzer asked it during a previous debate televised and produced by CNN.
The boyish Stephanopoulos, who has done wonders with the network’s Sunday morning hour, “This Week” (as, indeed, has Gibson with the nightly “World News”), looked like an overly ambitious intern helping out at a subcommittee hearing, digging through notes for something smart-alecky and slimy. He came up with such tired tripe as a charge that Obama once associated with a nutty bomb-throwing anarchist. That was “40 years ago, when I was 8 years old,” Obama said with exasperation.
My question is, what did people want? We have heard time and time again about their health care plans, their Iraq war plans, they gas price places, their foreign policy plans, their domestic policy plans, and whether they prefer diamonds or pearls.
The issues have been beaten to death, ad nauseam. I’ll agree, the questions did not pertain to the “issues” of the campaign, but they did attest to the “issues” at hand which each candidate needed to address.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...Visit the You Decide 2008 Store »
Loading ...
Were they motivated by what they thought would boost ratings? Was there also bias?
I think the answer is yes to both questions. Lousy debate.
I stopped watching after the first hour. I am sick and tired of tabloid like moderators. I know many people who feel like I do, are also tired of it. If the networks think that they will have better ratings and higher viewership by stooping down to this level of yellow “journalism” (to give it a name)
they are sadly mistaking. Cable television no longer give us news as CNN once did, when Ted Turner owned it. All we get is crime cases in all of the “cable news channels,”for hours on in…And now, we get this ridiculous 2 hour long fiasco of a political campaign debate, that is why I turn to foreing news, for my world information and news!!!
This was one of the worst debates I saw during this campaign.
I’ve said this over and over again in various places. The networks need to change the format of debates to make them more issue-centric. I’m not talking about giving a person a minute or two on an issue. Rather, I think each debate should be about a particular issue.
For example, Clinton and Obama could have a debate about healthcare ONLY, in which each candidate is given 20-30 minutes to present their respective plans for dealing with the healthcare situation in this country. These presentations would be done alone with any audio-visual materials they might require.
Then, once both presentations have been made, they could have a 30-60 minute debate between the two candidates over healthcare and NOTHING ELSE. If the networks would publicize the subjects of the debates ahead of time, people could tune in knowing what to expect. So, people who don’t care as much about the healthcare situation could choose not to watch.
A major problem with debates is that they’re too free-form right now with regard to subject matter. The media pundits (I won’t even call them journalists) tend to choose the direction of the debates based on ratings and TMZ-style ambush. While I believe that it’s important for the candidates to have a chance to respond to such gaffes and accusations, they should not take up nearly an hour of debate as they did in last night’s telecast!
i am very disappointed in ABC news. The debate was not about the real issues. It was like a planned attack on Obama. It was like ABC and Foxnews planned to attack Obama in front of the entire United States of America. I will not watch anything on ABC because I feel that the station is prejuiced. The debate did not have any real substance at all. You all kept showing Chelsea Clinton. I will watch CNN or MSNBC for now on.
I was totally disgusted with Charlie and George - they should be fired.
Obama won hands down - he is a real class act, and all the millions Bubba & Hillary made could not buy an ounce of class for Hillary. Either you have it or you don’t and she definitely does not.
Wish I could debate against her.
Don, I think we’ve just seen what happens when, after 20 other debates, they’ve just run out of issues to talk about. Their stances on the real issues are close there’s really nothing to debate about them. It comes down to personalities.
This is just stupid. The moderators did great. As if we don’t already know where the candidates stand on issues. Isn’t that what the 1st 20 debates were for?
This was the best debate yet, because we finally get to see the candidates as they are. I knew however ABC would be attacked because they didn’t kiss obama’s ass like they do on every other show. Why is it so bad for us to know that he goes to a church to listen to anti-American and anti-semitic rants?
Obama’s sheep need to wake up because they’ll defend anything that is dug up and he has to whine anytime moderators question him, then get out of the race because the Republicans are going to run right over you.
This man is too weak to win a general election.
Anyone who can honestly say obama won this debate is really quite laughable and is just in complete denial.
Now I’m just waiting for someone to call ABC news “racist”. lol
Hillary won this debate for her knowledge and strength. Obama stuttered everytime he spoke and I just wanna know, what happened to that confident and hopeful speaker that everyone fell for? You’ve seen it here folks, if that guy can’t even keep a sentence together against a candidate like Hillary how is he going to be commander and chief–when the stuff really hits the fan?!
I love his positive attitude, the will to change politics, and his views of the world, but he lacked his charisma last night, and spun around the pastor question like a pro.
He LOST my vote.
and anyone who wants to comment on this, before you even do:
RELAX its just an opinion, don’t convince me, don’t write about it, get over it, its not personal…let it go because each person should take what they would like into account (and my vote is not based on merely last night’s debate) its just overall.
You’re right, Caleb. ABC didn’t kiss Obama’s ass. They kissed Clinton’s ass.
He’s strong enough to win the general election, Clinton is proving that point.
Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia Pennsylvania?
http://www.youpolls.com/d.....p?pid=2137
.
Of course the debate should have been more about the issues and less about the gossipy aspects of the race, but it is about time someone put some pressure on the Golden One.
And of course his followers are upset about it. IMHO, he has been getting a free pass for far too long. He has been treated like the second coming and if he is to continue in this race, he needs to learn to answer for himself and learn to speak extemporaneously without having to go back and explain himself. If elected, will he have a chance to go back and explain is he doesn’t phrase his answers correctly to a foreign Head-of-State? NOT! A ‘mangled’ answer there might just get us all in hot water!
I thought moderators were supposed to at least feign neutrality: Gibson sounded almost hostile and confrontational and George sounded like a patsy (Clintonistas? or Foxies?) Trivial, tedious, tiresome tabloiding and demeaning of the candidates both of them.
Yes Dem777
Hillary won through her knowledge, strength, and because she Barack had to explain why he wasn’t wearing his American flag lapel pin while Hillary wasn’t asked to explain why she lied about being shot at in Bosnia. Or why she wasn’t wearing her American flag lapel pin.
Everyone is attacking Obama about his association with folks who have said/done terrible things, even if that was 40 years ago. Why then hasn’t anyone addressed the fact that Hillary is apparently condoning husbands who cheat on their wives, and who lie about it. She is standing by her adulterous husband. What does that say about their morals and high religious ideals?
Well Caleb, one of the responders already did wright that “the station is prejuiced”.
You thought the debate was great because you obviously don’t like Senator Obama. I’m not a Obama supporter, per say, as I’m undecided about which party or candidate I will support in the end but it was plain to see the entire debate was an attack on him.
I’m interested in issues. Who will fix our broken foreign policy? Who will revitalize our failing economy? Who is going to bring our troops home? Who is going to confront the big oil companies of the world and demand retrabution for holding the world hostage in order to generate profits in the BILLIONS of dollars quarterly? That is quarterly!!!
I’m interested in so much more but last night’s debate wasn’t about issues, rather is was about discrediting the candidates and trying to insight an all out verbal character war.
I watched the whole dabate anxiously awaiting material of substance that might help me decide which way to vote in November but it just was not to be.
Guess I’ll have to pay more attention to who Obama said hello to in a coffee shop 20 years ago.
I am very disgusted in ABC news. The debate was childish and not about the real issues at hand, (i.e. economic crises, housing situation, homeland security). It was like a planned attack on Obama to try to discredit and demeanor the senator, basically to aid Clinton tactics. ABC and Fox news planned to attack Obama in front of the entire United States of America. The debate did not have any real substance at all. ABC kept showing Chelsea Clinton under a spotlight. Senator Obama tried to debate about issues America is facing under the poor Bush Administration.
Dem777, it is a bit problematic to put forth your views and then request that no one challenge them.
Hillary Clinton, as always, presented herself as being very knowledgeable on policy subjects. In this respect, I think she has time-and-time-again demonstrated a stronger image than Obama on this.
However, she also sidestepped a lot of issues (so did Obama), and presented herself as willing to get into the kinds of politics that has been hurting her campaign for the past several months.
I don’t see a strong winner out of this debate. In many ways, it was the rehashing of old arguments and reasserting of their personalities. Obama did use quite a bit more filler words in this debate, than in the past, but had some very powerful moments when he rose above petty politics.
Clinton needed to score big last night. I feel she missed the mark, and this is partly due to a poor management by the moderators.
Babs, I think you are right. But if that’s the case than in my opinion this debate was unnecessary. Those 20 other debates and all the campaigning both candidates have done, combined with the given media coverage, are enough for me to make up my mind as far as personality is concerned.
To think that I actually held George S. in such high regard that I personally had him in second place to Tim Russert on the Sunday political shows. Gibson I knew to be FoxNews material, but George dissapointed me. I’ve been glued to politics for the past year but last night I actually turned off the debate after seeing how bad it was for 30 minutes. It seemed more geared toward creating tabloid headlines for the morning news than revealing the strategic plans of these candidates for the nation. And there were so many commercials I turned it off to help my kids do their homework. ABC News has sunken to FoxNews status in my book, and that’s two rungs below The Equirer for journalistic quality.
I partially agree with Babs. After 20 debates, we have heard where they stand on different issues and they agree on majority of them. I also think ABC was playing catch up. The broadcasters felt like this was their one and only chance to slam them and they really made a show out of it. It’s funny, I think the debate was very similar to a interview Steven Colbert, as sensational as he is, would’ve conducted. They could have focused on issues concerning the state at that time like Gun control, Religion and politics, or Jobs and Education. Even though the country has heard these issues before, I think you owe it Pennsylvania to really focus on the issues that they care about. This wasn’t a show of character or personality. This was a show about how we can make the candidates squirm and grab at one another.
Anyone with an above room temperature IQ who watched last night’s debate now knows neither of these candidates have the integrity–or the smarts–to be trusted with our children’s future. The Democratic Party super delegates need to draft Al Gore, or Joe Biden before the looming convention sinks into chaos.
I was totally disgusted with the questions at last nights debate. Talk about Yellow Journalism. My old professor would have give both of you guys asking those dumb questions a failing grade. You should be ashamed of yourselves for being part of this awful debate. And an a+ to both the candidates for keeping their cool and not just saying ” To heck with you bozos” and removing their mikes and walking off the set with dignity. You have dropped to new lows and I have lost all respect for you both as News men.
Hillary is losing on this one too. It show her why her rating are going down, down, down. George was an Aide to Clinton’s. Fox & ABC & even CNN are pretty prejudice in how they ask their questions, as in don’t you think…. Almost always showing favoritism toward Hillary. The only fair commentators I’ve seen are on MSMBC. They are fairly giving the facts & making fun of all the commentators.
GO OBAMA
We’ve heard the candidates explain their platforms time after time, debate after debate. So the moderators sacrificed substance for entertainment in this one, big deal. Are media elites upset that ABC created an environment hostile to their lord and savior, Obama?
Hey MSNBC and CNN have been so terribly slanted towards Obama and so soft on questioning him I expect people would have a hard time if someone was not stroking Obama’s backside constanstly. They mock Hillary and make fun of her sex and make it an issue and they don’t do this to Obama as mocking his race would be taboo.
The media has been so slanted that a balanced debate on ABC is screamed about. They hit Hillary on Bosnia, gun control lots of issues. You are just so used to seeing Obama treated like a GOD. GO HILLARY. By the way she was miles stronger on affirmative action, the economy, gun control, and Way ahead on IRAQ.
P.S. ask Obama about sitting in the pews while his pastor spewed hate at and about Natalee Holloway. This wsa not even covered in the media…
I think Charley and George did a great job. What they didn’t do was cuddle Obama like so many have done in the past. It was refreshing for a change. I keep hoping that Obama will say what he means and stop stumbling over his meanings-after all his remarks can’t all be taken OUT OF CONTEXT!!!
I thought it was telling yesterday when I caught a soundbite of Obama also complaining about his treatment during the debate. So I suppose he thought he lost, too. It sounded like he was making excuses for his performance.
Apparently ABC thinks all Americans are uneducated, mouth-breathing, gun-toting, STAR Magazine reading idiots with questions like “Do you believe in the American flag?” OF COURSE both of these candidates are patriotic and love this country, why else would they be subjecting themselves to this rigor? Gibson and Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of themselves, this was an ALL TIME CAREER LOW for both reporters and an all time low for ABC and America as a whole. I would be embarrased to show my face and ask such stupid questions of these two intelligent, outstanding individuals. Does anybody at ABC realize that this is a matter of OUR COUNTRY’S FUTURE….not ratings? Stop insulting me.
Probably babs. I think everyone mostly agrees that he lost. I’m just not sure everyone agrees that it was a debate.
He was asked to explain why he wasn’t wearing an American flag lapel pin, when no one on the stage was wearing an American flag lapel pin! I mean… that’s just funny. What is he supposed to say? I’m out of order, you’re out of order, the whole goddamn system’s out of order!
I don’t know, Indiminded, I think it’s a toss up among people concerning who lost. But I don’t think it was a good idea to complain about the first 45 minutes, though, because it was in that time frame that they allowed the taped questions from the voters, and that might not go down well that he complained about it. I also think that was a bit of a cop out on ABC’s part, I’m sure the moderators picked the lady who asked about the flag to serve their own purposes.
Well some people are giving the debate to Obama simply because it was such a clear political ambush to anyone willing to give the idea credit. He was asked to explain his lack of lapel pin…
Hillary Clinton was not even asked to explain her lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. She WAS asked how she could earn a voters trust back after that gaffe, so the gaffe was mentioned, but she was not asked to explain it. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one - because the question she was asked was ultimately closer to “you’ve lost my vote, how can you earn it back?” rather than “Why did you make that story up?” and it was the hardest question she was asked.
Anyway, I thought he lost, but I also thought that ABC had a clear mission with this debate: bring down Obama. I do think he gets it pretty easy with the media in general. But if he had thought this was going to be an attack instead of a debate, he surely wouldn’t have shown up. I mean, he may have lost, but obviously the chances were a bit weighted
Half of these blogs state Obama gets a free ride from the media.
A free ride on what?
Every move Obama makes is scrutinized for days on end by both Hilary and the republicans. Every word he says is ridiculed and dissected and cheapened, as though it is somehow disingenious to actually use words to campaign.
There has not been a single Obama scandal uncovered that involves Obama. He has not lied, cheated, committed any crime. Snipers are taking shots at him by shooting down his associates, one, a hold-over civil rights activist with understandable issues and one, a real estate deal gone wrong. Why these 2 people? Because that’s the only thing anyone can find wrong with the man after 20 years of public service and yet half the country wants the media to attack him?!!
This is a new low for Americans. When a whole debate can get aired with a sole basis of voicing jibes and gossip, it has to be because there is an expectation that the American audiance will appreciate it.
Go on America, take your “faith”-ful Republicans (thieving, illegal contract giving, job destroying, rob the poor to feed the rich republicans, not to mention, since we’re pointing fingers of bigotry, their anti-homosexuality stance that keeps getting proven to be a meaningless sham) and your snide, divisive, worse-than-questionably-connected and underhanded Clintons — take them and make sure that you write the price for their millions in profit right on your own *#@ — because that is where it’s coming from.
to continue — just in case the previous post is dismissed as a bit emotional…..
Obama pointed out that he expects attacks, “punches” during a campaign, and that most of his have come from Hilary. I think that this debate went a long way to prove that major difference between the two candidates — that Hilary is playing the same dirty game and Barack, who has thrown no “punches” is still managing to win against the monstrous many-headed Clinton machine anyway.
Hilary and Bill are well known for their ruthlessness, even to the point of demeaning a landmark, historical presidential contest as a racial popularity issue and that is what we can expect more of the White House, but this debate looked like W-era Machiavellian national propaganda — would we be wrong to believe that they now have ABC, or at least George and Charles, on their payroll?
Re-watching the debate clarified for me that Obama can keep a cool head under fire, there is no way he could have prepared for a full hour of rude, sensationalist questions being flung at him in rapid succession with no order, but frequent random breaks in the middle of it.
Then when Hilary was given that lovely chance to reassure her constituent that her lies on Bosnia are not an issue, Barack still chose to keep his cool, throw no punches (although it left him with precious little to say on her behalf) and actually excuse her lies better than she could herself.
Actually, it is inconceivable to me that her outright lies could possibly be lumped in with Obama’s comment as a ‘gaffe’, just another soft pass by the media for the Clintons, apparently.
Let’s remember that the reason Obama’s competition has to sink this low, “despicable” was the word used in the Washington Post, is becasue we finally have a candidate in the tradition of John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt. This is a man who is not polished, not just a ‘politician’, not in anybody’s pocket.
We finally have a candidate who sees his country in need and even under fire is rising up to answer that call. These were the kinds of men who built America the Beautiful, not the power-hungry, greedy professionals in whose vice-grip we now languish.
If enough people say something then by communal reinforcement it becomes true. Truth is. At one time there just wasn’t any dirt on Obama. so there wasn’t much they COULD attack him on. This is how the flag pin came up long ago or his alleged turning his back to the American flag. People may be angry that the media didn’t pick up on these small internet punches and run them over and over again. Or maybe they are angry because there is dirt on other people campaigning but none on him at the time. But look as soon as they found a few things of substance they ran with it. Look at Rev Wright. that has been played over and over and over again on almost every media outlet and some are still playing it now. Yet some people are STILL saying he gets a free pass on the media?
Bunmi some people are delusional.
I disagree that Obama hasn’t thrown punches. He has. Doesn’t excuse Hillary, but doesn’t exemplify Obama either.
With a different president over the last 7+ years, our country would be in much different shape. Two of the biggest problems, Medicare & climate change, have only grown. The debate, moderated by Charlie Gibson & George Stepanopoulos, reminded me of a debate between candidates for high school class president. An election in this country is already too much of a popularity contest without the moderators using their time before a large audience to home in on absolutely frivolous issues, while ignoring many of great importance.
As someone who doesn’t like either democratic candidate and have no reason to be biased, I believe that the press has been much harder on Clinton. If you include infotainment shows like Colbert and Stewart, it’s even more lopsided. I will say lately, however, that Obama has taken more heat.
Shame, shame, shame, George and Charles. You are not reporters, you ambushers. I knew Gerorge would not and could not be objecitve - how could he be? He was interviewing a woman (Hillary) who gave him his first job out of college which helped launch his career. Of course, he OWES her a lot and he delivered. ABC should have required Geeorge to give a disclaimer at the beginning of the debate acknowledging he was once hired by the Clintons. Charles was a disappointment. Both should be fired immediately and ABC needs to apologize to the American people immediately.
Charles Gibson made a comment before the debate that it seems as if the cadidates were trying to shape the debate. Well, why not? Neither commentator checked with the public to find out what they wanted.Both George and Charles need to get over themselves. Do they have pastors? Probably not. Who are you to decide that Obama should distance himself from his pastor just because he disagrees with what his pastor says. All of the commentors are the world’s worst at trying to change the behaviour of the candidates to suit yourselves. Stick to your calling and you will do a much better job.
Like this stuff is anything new.
Welcome to racism 101…..Obama is asked tough questions to try to make him look bad, Clinton is asked set-up questions to make her look good.
Rev. Wright makes a racial comment, all hell breaks loose.
The Gov. of Penn(and Clinton supporter)makes a racial comment, everyones tape recorder breaks.
It’s been going on for ages but we have some news for you America: that stuff ain’t working any more.
If nothing else, it’s a great test for Obama. Because after he becomes our next president, he will have to face eight years of more scrutiny than even Richard Nixon because sadly, this country is still stuck on stupid when it comes to race. Some would rather have Bush back as president than have Obama.
Obama says he’s a man of God. If he is, and relys on the word instead of a bunch of narrow minded media people, he will be OK.
Which makes me wonder: with the way the media has gone after Obama on every little thing, how wrong was Reverand Wright with his comments about this country?
tommy,
Let me get this straight. If Obama is asked tough questions or is roughed up in anyway, that is racism? Stop playing the race card everytime Obama has a poor showing, it’s getting really old.
Amen, Stalin. People aren’t “vetting” Obama because he’s black, they’re “vetting” him because he’s green.