|
|
October 1, 2004
You Watched. Tell Me What You Saw in Jim Lehrer's Performance.Let other blogs brave the Interpretive Jungle and reach the candidates. PressThink sticks to Jim Lehrer, journalist and moderator. How well did he do last night? And why do we entrust presidential debates to Jim Lehrer? Post links. Post thoughts. I'm collecting intelligent comment.Collecting intelligent comment means you hit the comment button and say something intelligent. Give me your thoughts on Jim Lehrer, and what you want in a debate moderator. To see what questions he asked go to the bottom of the post. How did Jim Lehrer do in your judgment? MediaChannel.org study: Moderator Lehrer received high marks for fairness. More than 83% of both groups of supporters felt he showed no favoritism to either candidate. More Kerry supporters thought his question selection was “extremely” relevant than Bush supporters did (55% v 39%), a rating that jibes with their reactions to the amount of attention paid to Iraq. Lehrer was well rated for being “extremely” plainspoken (60% by Kerry supporters, 49% by Bush’s), low rated for being “extremely” imaginative (15% and 12%). Patrick Miller: I think all of us went into the debate thinking all we were going to see were two press conferences that happened to overlap each other. News Nag: I thought Lehrer did a terrific job this time. He obviously worked hard to prepare himself well, in every respect, and it showed. On his news show, he tends to get sloppy, not consistently aware of the latest-breaking revelations at times, and sometimes getting his facts wrong as if he hadn’t really listened closely to certain news reports. Did Lehrer ask what needed to be asked? Eric Deamer: The only visible anti-Bush bias in the questions was that too many of them were about Bush’s record. None, zip, zero of them were about Kerry’s record 20-year record in the Senate. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that the election is “a referendum on the incumbent”, but it almost seemed as if Lehrer was trying to do his part to make sure that storyline played out…the true Bush partisans think Lehrer was horribly, egregiously biased against Bush with his questions. I disagree. David S. Isenberg: The unasked elephant-in-the-room question: Oil and foreign policy. Is it just an irrelevant coincidence that Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in known oil reserves? What is the relationship between oil and foreign policy JD Lasica: Yes, there were foreign policy issues left on the table — Cuba, Israel, South America, etc. — but he guided his laser pointer where it clearly belonged: on Iraq and international terrorism. Stephen Waters: Lehrer should have filtered potential questions by asking, “Is it likely we will get an answer to this question that will forward our understanding of the candidates or their positions?” Had he done that, the character question would never have been asked. Both candidates are practiced enough to avoid that trap. Did you feel represented? Tom Parmenter: Lehrer really poisoned the well in the 2000 debates with his wishy-washy moderation. Last night he was much more engaged, a much better voice of the interested voter. Your favorite Jim Lehrer moment from tonight? Rebecca Blood: “I liked it very much when he stopped the debate twice to clearly restate the candidates’ positions on an issue and to ask if that accurately relected their position. I felt as if he was making an honest attempt to help the viewer make sense of a point that might otherwise have been muddied.” Jay Rosen: My favorite was his question about genocide and the Sudan. He made a point first: that neither had ever mentioned sending US troops. And he wanted to know why. So did I. Care to describe Jim Lehrer’s strength’s as a moderator, as they were in evidence tonight? Tom Shales: Jim Lehrer of public television did a first-rate job of moderating the debate, fighting against the stuffiness imposed by debate negotiators. The audience in the hall was kept so emotionally and spiritually distant from the proceedings that there was really no reason for them to be there at all. Does Jim Lehrer of PBS have a style and what are the consequences of that style in a presidential debate? Andrew Cline: As for personal style, I’d call him a slightly grumpy Ward Cleaver. He’s the dad you don’t want to try to fool because his B.S. detector is very sensitive. Yet he’s understanding without being condescending. His ethos: trust. Jay Rosen: It’s harder than it looks to do what Lehrer does. Just to be cool and alert in the situation is a feat of professional discipline. Lehrer was that: he was disciplined. I think Andrew is right that his great skill is his ear. But you have to be calm and confident enough to relax in a very tense situation and just… listen. Kerry says Bush made a colossal mistake. “Colossal misjudgments,” says Lehrer, “what colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas?” Don’t tell me Jim Lehrer is annoying; that doesn’t help. Isolate and describe in detail one annoying thing about him— that helps. Is Lehrer supposed to blend in, and is there a talent there? Moderator Jim Lehrer’s questions, 2004 Presidential Debate, Sep. 30 Miami 1. To Kerry: Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States? 2. To Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on Nov. 2 would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack? 3. To Kerry: Colossal misjudgments, what colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas? 4. To Bush: What about Senator Kerry’s point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein? 5. To Kerry: As president, what would you do specifically in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing? 6. To Bush: What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq? 7. To Kerry: Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971 after you came back from Vietnam and you said, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake? 8. To Bush: You have said there was a “miscalculation” of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation? And how did it happen? 9. To Kerry: You have repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially, of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth. 10. To Bush: Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost in American lives: 1,052 as of today? 11. To Kerry: Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry, two minutes. Can you give us specifics in terms of a scenario, timelines, etc., for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq? 12. To Bush: Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another pre-emptive military action? 13. To Kerry: What is your position on the whole concept of pre-emptive war? 14. To Bush: Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? 15. To Kerry: You mention Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan, 50,000 people have already died in that area, more than a million are homeless. It has been labeled an act of ongoing genocide, yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops. Why not? 16. To Bush: There are clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States? 17. To Kerry: If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single-most serious threat to the national security of the United States? 18. To Bush: Mr. President, this is the last question and two minutes. It’s a new subject, new question and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you - do you feel that what he is doing in the name of anti-terrorism by changing some democratic processes is O.K.? And then there was this exchange: Mr. Bush: You know my opinion on North Korea. I can’t say it any more plainly. Mr. Lehrer: Right, well, what - he used the word truth again. Mr. Bush: Pardon me? Mr. Lehrer: Talking about the truth of the matter. Used the word truth again. Did that raise any hackles with you? (Source: New York Times transcript.)
Posted by Jay Rosen at October 1, 2004 12:27 AM
Comments
I liked it very much when he stopped the debate twice to clearly restate the candidates' positions on an issue and to ask if that accurately relected their position. I felt as if he was making an honest attempt to help the viewer make sense of a point that might otherwise have been muddied. Posted by: rebecca blood at October 1, 2004 12:38 AM | Permalink I was impressed that he asked serious questions related to policy, character, and judgment, and when they went for colorful or more dramatic language he would follow up and ask them to back it up with specifics, to stand behind their rhetoric. To me, that was refreshing after what has felt like a consistent avoidance of substance and, especially, judgment, in campaign coverage I've seen so far. It is disappointing that the rules didn't allow them to pose questions to one another, that is, to actually debate one another, but I thought Lehrer did an impressive job covering the angles that should matter to a thinking voter. Posted by: Ben Franklin at October 1, 2004 12:45 AM | Permalink I thought that Jim Lehrer did a really excellent of constructing a series of questions that forced the candidates to really express their view of the pressing issues we're facing as a country in national security. The News Hour is the only nightly news program I'm sure to watch each day (though Chris Matthew's is starting to make it's way into the rotation) - I found Jim's performance tonight to far exceed his already excellent work on the News Hour. Maybe the media will actually do it's job in this election afterall. Bravo. Those were HIS questions? Also, toward the end, Leherer made a comment to Bush of something like, "Didn't that get your hackles up?" It certainly didn't raise the level of the debate. Posted by: B. Hall at October 1, 2004 1:33 AM | Permalink hugh hewitt (hughhewitt.com) has a debate scorecard that has the questions - well, the characterised & annotated version, anyhow. i thought lehrer did an excellent job, and i liked the mix of questions, especially as this election is a referrendum on bush. he gave both an 'open-end' [read: 'softball'] question or two, and he asked some tough-but-fair ones. i thought his ques coverted the major themes and two important subtexts of such a 'dirty' campaign, including allowing kerry to justify (or retreat) from calling bush a liar; allowing bush to say (not say) if kerry was charachter-deficient. following ms. blood's comment, lehrer's two clarifying moments were both good moderation and well-done.
Posted by: diderot at October 1, 2004 1:50 AM | Permalink I didn't quite see the point in asking each about the other's character, or whatever that question was near the end. Posted by: Linkmeister at October 1, 2004 2:15 AM | Permalink Here's the transcript, if someone wants to go to the trouble of pulling the questions out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html Posted by: Linkmeister at October 1, 2004 2:19 AM | Permalink Hewitt listed all the questions on his site. Lehrer actually wasn't too bad. The only visible anti-Bush bias in the questions was that too many of them were about Bush's record. None, zip, zero of them were about Kerry's record 20-year record in the Senate. I realize that the conventional wisdom is that the election is "a referendum on the incumbent", but it almost seemed as if Lehrer was trying to do his part to make sure that storyline played out. I liked how he asked a lot of questions that weren't about Iraq. His style is fine. You barely notice him, which is good. Lehrer is fine. He's obviously biased towards the Democratic candidate, but not egregiously so. He's also not a moron, unlike most newsreaders. He has no strong personality or ego, which is good. He's as good as we're gonna get. He should do this until he dies, and none of the network guys should be allowed within a mile of these things, especially anyone from CBS. Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 1, 2004 3:56 AM | Permalink My impression is that Lehrer has tilted toward the Republicans over the past year or so, so perhaps that tells something about where we're coming from. Lehrer has moderated presidential debates many times over now, and this has to be one of his best performances. Yes, there were foreign policy issues left on the table -- Cuba, Israel, South America, etc. -- but he guided his laser pointer where it clearly belonged: on Iraq and international terrorism. Those are the issues on which this election will, and should, be decided. Journalists shouldn't be deciding who should be elected the next president of the United States, and to his credit, Lehrer asked the tough questions without showing favoritism or dipping into the cesspool of Washington horserace journalism. Nice job. Lehrer didn't ask a single question about John Kerry's Senate record. That is the biggest headline out of the debate. Kerry has been trying to avoid discussion about it (gave it only like eight words during his convention speech) and Lehrer helped in that effort. He rightly held Bush's record to account but the fact that he let Kerry off the hook was a huge blemish on his record. Posted by: Dead Parrot at October 1, 2004 5:42 AM | Permalink I think he did fine, in a American blending sort of way. Just once I would like to see a panel of BBC reporters host a presidential debate; I think the moderator should be allowed one follow-up question for clarification of each candidate's answer before the other replies. (and the moderator should also have a crib sheet for facts when asking that question; there were quite a number of inaccuracies last night.) The consequences of that style, as you say, is to allow the candidates to be vague when it comes to specifics. For instance, the 70min of a 90min debate spent on Iraq I felt was disproportional considering that both candidates agreed that nuclear non-proliferation was the greatest threat to America; but it took 70min because the answers were largely repetitive. A good debate would give the facilitator the opportunity to whittle down to the core issues much faster. Two questions I really liked; the first was to Bush "did you misjudge Putin?" That was an excellent tie-in to all the rhetoric of Democracy in Iraq. The second, I agree with Rebecca, was the question on Darfur. Posted by: Daniel Kreiss at October 1, 2004 5:47 AM | Permalink Leher passed over Kerry's rebuttal time a few times during the debate. He would grant Bush a 60 discussion, but faile to give the other half to Kerry. I liked the character issues he asked Bush. Forced the campaign to put or shut up before 50 million. I do think we should see any more Swifties after this. Posted by: Michael at October 1, 2004 6:21 AM | Permalink 1) Lehrer should have filtered potential questions by asking, "Is it likely we will get an answer to this question that will forward our understanding of the candidates or their positions?" Had he done that, the character question would never have been asked. Both candidates are practiced enough to avoid that trap. 2) Like Conan Doyles' "Hound of the Baskervilles" dog that didn't bark, Lehrer did not pick up on the unmentioned central theme of foreign relations -- the failure of the United Nations. While Kerry pounded that the United Nations was the solution, Bush studiously avoided saying the the United Nations was part of the problem. It is noteworthy that Bush didn't use that bullet to shoot down Kerry's position. That may be related to Presidential calculation about the desirability of saving UN face because you need to work with them. Lehrer could have asked telling questions to each on the subject that might have shown either Kerry's misunderstanding of the UN and/or Bush's necessity to be President even during a campaign. The unasked elephant-in-the-room question: Oil and foreign policy. Is it just an irrelevant coincidence that Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in known oil reserves? What *is* the relationship between oil and foreign policy? Posted by: David S. Isenberg at October 1, 2004 8:50 AM | Permalink The unasked elephant-in-the-room question: Oil and foreign policy. Is it just an irrelevant coincidence that Iraq is second only to Saudi Arabia in known oil reserves? What *is* the relationship between oil and foreign policy? Posted by: David S. Isenberg at October 1, 2004 8:54 AM | Permalink The questions were fine, Lehrer was fine. I also liked his clarifying the candidates' positions. It's too bad there was no one to challenge factual misstatements (such as Kerry's about the New York subway, a flat out lie intended to denigrate homeland security progress), but the candidates ought to do some of the work. That said, the debate was over a small field of questions and before long both candidates were repeating themselves. The question on the Sudan evoked predictable hemming and hawing from both. It's hard to evaluate Lehrer on style and questions when the candidates were doing such a poor job of answering them. There are three Lehrer's to consider: - Lehrer the inquisitorThe questions by the inquisitor were primarily framed by the campaign narratives of each candidate and the Master Narrative of the press: 1) Nasty campaign rhetoric.The questions allowed each candidate to express the highlights of their stump speeches. It was interesting that the questions followed the axis of evil outline, which is not even controversial anymore (plus Dafur). I'm not sure that shouldn't have been a question. Was naming the axis of evil countries prescient or self-fulling? On Iraq there was a repetition of catch phrases by both candidates but especially Bush ("hard work", "mixed messages", ...). Part of this is not straying off of their message and part might be not enough difference in the attack vector, the angle, of the question. I think the format (2 minutes, 90 second rebuttal, optional additional 30 seconds each) gives the candidates more than ample opportunity to be repetitive on their talking points without having to fill air time with details. The questions were structured for that time constrained "high level" response. I think the clarification on North Korea was appropriate to highlight Kerry's "do both" and Bush's "bilateral fatally undermines multilateral". I thought the clarification on nuclear proliferation as the greatest threat was less effective and probably unnecessary. As an inquisitor, Lehrer comes off non-confrontational, knowledgeable and genuinely curious. It will be interesting to see how the partisans judge Lehrer's question choices. (MRC, 2000) There were not many moments when Lehrer acted as interlocutor (perhaps two by my count) if you do not include the clarifications. I do not think he was very effective when he did it. Again, the format provided a reasonable opportunity for the candidates to address each other without appearing to actually confront each other, so Lehrer did not especially need to act as a bridge between them. As moderator, I think Lehrer was smooth, not intrusive or obstructing. I did not notice Lehrer acting as an enforcer of the rules. The technology (lights) seemed to have worked well and only once did I here a candidate (Bush) say "Let me finish.", although I wasn't clear why. I thought the live audience did an excellent job. -------------- QUESTIONS: To Kerry: Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States? To Bush: Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2nd would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack? To Kerry: "Colossal misjudgments." What colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas? To Bush: What about Senator Kerry's point [Interlocutor moment?], the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein? To Kerry: As president, what would you do, specifically, in addition to or differently to increase the homeland security of the United States than what President Bush is doing? To Bush: What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq? To Kerry: Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake? To Bush: You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation," of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq. What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen? To Kerry: You just -- you've repeatedly accused President Bush -- not here tonight, but elsewhere before -- of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth. To Bush: Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost of American lives, 1,052 as of today? To Kerry: Can you give us specifics, in terms of a scenario, time lines, et cetera, for ending major U.S. military involvement in Iraq? To Bush: Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action? To Kerry: What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? To Bush: Do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Take them in any order you would like. CLARIFICATION To Bush: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks, correct? CLARIFICATION To Kerry: And you're willing to do it... CLARIFICATION Back to Bush: And you're opposed to that. Right? To Kerry: Senator Kerry, you mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area. More than a million are homeless. And it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops. Why not? To Bush: Clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe, that you believe are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as commander in chief of the United States? To Kerry: If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States? CLARIFICATION To Both: Just for this one-minute discussion here, just for whatever seconds it takes: So it's correct to say, that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree, if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected, the single most serious threat you believe, both of you believe, is nuclear proliferation? To Bush: Mr. President, this is the last question. And two minutes. It's a new subject -- new question, and it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him or are you -- do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is OK? INTERLOCUTOR EXCHANGE: LEHRER: Thirty seconds, Mr. President. Posted by: Tim at October 1, 2004 9:25 AM | Permalink Judging the debate, not the debaters Posted by: Tim at October 1, 2004 9:42 AM | Permalink I was disappointed to see that nearly all of the questions were of a personal nature, meaning that the candidates were prompted to respond or discuss each others decisions, words, actions (or non-actions), and in a lot of cases how they FELT about the other candidate. This line of questioning led to answers that were less introspective and less germane to the overall topic of the debate. It really seemed to me that Leher was trying to bait them both into attacking the one another instead of trying to tease out concrete positions on a variety of issues. I was also sad to see that the questions were dominated by iraq. I think Kerry and Bush tried to bring up some things like our borders, and airplane inspections, and the Patriot Act, but Leher chose not to follow any of those themes. Instead we got 18 different variations of the same question. Posted by: Mike at October 1, 2004 10:16 AM | Permalink Pretty good, but too much Iraq. Bush seemed to get extra responses. Posted by: praktike at October 1, 2004 10:18 AM | Permalink There appeared to be some subtle, pro-Bush bias in Mr. Lehrer's questions. For example, Kerry was asked to give specific policy examples (questions 5 & 11), whereas the President was never asked to provide any specifics. As I read through the questions put to the two candidates, those posed to Kerry are frequently longer and more complex. Lehrer seemed to allow Bush some extra responses and longer response times; there may even have been an instance or two where Kerry was not allowed to rebut, as Lehrer moved on to the next question. While the candidates' personal character should have been beside the point in a debate centering on administrative policy, I found it interesting that Mr. Lehrer solicited the President's opinion on Sen. Kerry's character (question 16), but did not then reciprocate by allowing Sen. Kerry to raise the issue of the President's character. Perhaps he (Lehrer) was fishing for a final word on the Swift Boat issue. In general, however, Lehrer was inobtrusive as a moderator, kept the proceedings moving, and maintained a dignified tone throughout. Posted by: Jake Wiese at October 1, 2004 10:58 AM | Permalink i agree that the audience was pointless: in the shadows, utterly silent (were they duct-taped?). he scared me w/ the olympian proclamations at the beginning about how-it's-gonna-be. he sounded like a mafia don. the clarifications were good, but he seemed to be pressing kerry to call bush a "liar" (which he is). a MAJOR oversight is the whole Likudnik conspiracy to run our foreign policy, e.g. the current espionage investigation, the influence of AIPAC, the neo-cons throughout the pentagon & state dept- their documents & arguments are out there. it's not a kooky conspiracy theory. this war, ultimately, seeks to benefit Israel's geo-political stance while hurting the US's. Posted by: brent at October 1, 2004 11:24 AM | Permalink Lehrer really poisoned the well in the 2000 debates with his wishy-washy moderation. Last night he was much more engaged, a much better voice of the interested voter. Posted by: Tom Parmenter at October 1, 2004 12:26 PM | Permalink Also posted on Rhetorica: Jay Rosen asks: Does Jim Lehrer of PBS have a style and what are the consequences of that style in a presidential debate? As for personal style, I'd call him a slightly grumpy Ward Cleaver. He's the dad you don't want to try to fool because his B.S. detector is very sensitive. Yet he's understanding without being condescending. His ethos: trust. Lherer's personal style mixes well with his superior reporter's ear. He listens well enough to know what to follow-up and when to do it. You can see this in the list of questions. It's organic. It evolved as the debate progressed (did you see that book of notes!?). His skill turned what promised to be nothing but a presentation of spin and sound bites into something more nearly debate like. In this he did citizens a great favor. Softballs to Kerry; the questions mostly are "how is Bush wrong here". No questions about Kerry's 20 year voting record against the military.
In Iraq, so far just over 1000 = A. Half of the point is focus on how good it has been, half is to get the critics to try to have some other scale, or else accept that Bush is actually doing very well.
I do NOT think Kerry could have been better. I do think Bush could have been. Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at October 1, 2004 1:31 PM | Permalink Prof. Rosen: I noticed you picked David S. Isenberg's Michael Moore-inspired "It's all about the OILLLLLLL!!!!" talking point as an "intelligent" comment. Tom Shales, who says all the people who complain about the MSM are "just sad" was also selected. In the future could you please be up-front and say you're looking for "intelligent, left-wing" responses or something like that instead? PS- The reason the oil question wasn't asked is that the debate is aimed at an audience of grown-ups. Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 1, 2004 1:35 PM | Permalink I think the debate was terribly orchestrated. Why didn't he follow-up with a question when the candidate stated that fighters there are fighting against "freedom" as to whether or not possibly they are fighting for the right not to have their country carved up and served to the rest of the world before they have a legitimate government in power to determine what the Iraqis want done with their country? The only difference between the candidates is that Bush wants America to have the $ and Kerry wants to share it with the rest of the world; it's not theirs to give! And if you think I'm bad, just to let you know: the true Bush partisans think Lehrer was horribly, egregiously biased against Bush with his questions. I disagree. Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 1, 2004 1:42 PM | Permalink Here's a detailed description of the degree of anti-Bush bias in each one of Lerher's questions. I disagree with this take. I agree with this take, done by another fellow Bush-supporter, that there was some anti-Bush bias in the questioning, but all in all not terrible, and probably the best we can hope for from the MSM. The undeniable takeaway is that there wasn't a single question on Kerry's 20-year record in the Senate. A pretty serious problem, and one which can only be explained by bias. Posted by: Eric Deamer at October 1, 2004 2:07 PM | Permalink Eric, do you think that oil has nothing to do with Iraq? Because that's a very interesting perspective. Posted by: praktike at October 1, 2004 2:26 PM | Permalink In the future could you please be up-front and say you're looking for "intelligent, left-wing" responses or something like that instead? Your complaint has been rectified, Eric. You are quoted in the post with a link to your blog. Questions not asked: For Kerry: You've described the alliance in Iraq as "a coalition of the coerced and the bribed". Some countries have left the coalition. Would you send more US troops to Iraq, not send more troops, or reduce the number troops to maintain the coalition and for how long? For Bush: "You and/or members of your administration now concede there was a problem of reliable intelligence analysis on weapons of mass destruction and postwar issues. How can you trust what your analysts are telling you now about the war in Iraq?" To either: Will you increase the size of the military? If so, where and would it be voluntary? If not, why not? Posted by: Tim at October 1, 2004 3:33 PM | Permalink I thought Lehrer did a terrific job this time. He obviously worked hard to prepare himself well, in every respect, and it showed. On his news show, he tends to get sloppy, not consistently aware of the latest-breaking revelations at times, and sometimes getting his facts wrong as if he hadn't really listened closely to certain news reports. I'll mention one specifically. During the first Shiite, mainly Sadrist revolt earlier in 2004, Lehrer baldly rationalized why the U.S. had cracked down on the Sadrists in the first place, actually sparking the revolt (even declaring they wanted to kill Sadr, himself), saying very emotionally and incorrectly that the U.S. HAD to shut down Sadr's newspaper because it had literally urged its readers to kill Americans - and that was not at all true. What the newspaper had done was publish indigenously well-known accounts of American atrocities against Iraqi civilians, including prison torture and egregious brutality during home invasions by U.S. troops. The newspaper had also published widespread, and not at all unlikely, speculations that some of the "revenge" bombings among Iraqi religious factions had, in fact, been perpetrated by covert agents of the Americans, such as some of the thousands of mercenaries or native CIA assets practicing the evil craft of divide-and-conquer. (So, what I'm saying is that Lehrer's latent imperialist bias shows through his work, sadly, and skews his reporting from time to time, making him no longer the most trusted man in news in America.) So, Lehrer, known also for his painstaking work as a novelist, again, must have concentrated very hard to stay focused on what would help create a good debate, and I, for one, am very grateful. I will from now on judge him more on this one performance than on his flagging attention to impartiality and fact on his news program. The News Nag Posted by: News Nag at October 1, 2004 3:36 PM | Permalink Given the format of the "debate", the manner that Lehrer framed his questions was as imporant as asking what needed to be asked. I think all of us went into the debate thinking all we were going to see were two press conferences that happened to overlap each other. Lehrer threw that dynamic out the window early in the debate, when his questions followed the flow of the debate, not a pre-planned script: 3. To Kerry: Colossal misjudgments, what colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas? 4. To Bush: What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein? Lehrer's crafting of the questions opened up the floor for the candidates to engage each other in a way that surprised many of us, and left many in the pundit class saying that it was the best debate they've seen in years. And to think, earlier in the evening all anyone could talk about were those damn lights. Posted by: Patrick Miller at October 1, 2004 4:50 PM | Permalink I still think the questions were biased, essentially focusing on Bush's record and ignoring Kerry's. So here's my question-by-question rating of bias for Lehrer's performance: Posted by: Tim at October 1, 2004 7:41 PM | Permalink I thought that Jim Lehrer was an excellent moderator for the debate. "The News Hour" consistently excels at giving straight, non-biased reporting. They also are quick to correct any serious reporting errors, or obvious bias, that are called to their attention (Carrying Judith Miller's cheerleading reports from the field early in the war). I agree with many other posters that it was helpful that Mr. Lehrer took the time-outs to have the candidates clarify their positions. It did seem to me that Bush was given very long "90 second" responses a few times, but I guess that's to be expected. While it's true that there weren't any questions regarding Kerry's senate voting record, I think that this was wise, especially considering the time constraints. Any question that allowed a reasonable time to respond would have taken too long. The response would have to be detailed and nuanced and would've been counterproductive for the forum. It might have ended up being a lesson in the intracacies of modern politics, which may have put everyone to sleep. Yes, this might have worked against Kerry ultimately, as he's prone to being verbose. It makes sense that Mr. Lehrer didn't want to see the debate turn into an esoteric civics lesson. Posted by: Brian W. at October 1, 2004 9:15 PM | Permalink To depart slightly from topic, I sense the press struggling to stay out of its post-debate spin mode, i.e. make the event fit the narrative. I wonder if they can restrain themselves or if at the first sign of a blip in the polls they will suddenly revert to declaring something "obvious" about the debate (beyond the fact that it had no informational content). I moderated a political debate on Tuesday and felt pretty proud of the job I did. Then I watched Lehrer on Thursday and felt absolutely humbled. As others have noted, the job is tougher than it looks, and Lehrer does it with extraordinary skill. Posted by: David Crisp at October 2, 2004 11:27 AM | Permalink Two of the most important topics for John Kerry to address,or be questioned on,is his Senate record for the past 20 years, and his actions after his tour of duty in Viet Nam. Why were these most important subjects not brought up before this large viewing audience? ABJr. Posted by: Archie Bennett, Jr. at October 2, 2004 1:18 PM | Permalink Lehrer's questions left some glaring holes in the debate. To talk about nuclear proliferation, Iran, and terrorism without mentioned nuclear Israel, and the Israel-Palestine conflict was ridiculous. While it was very good that he mentioned the International Criminal Court, the neglect of other international issues, such as global warming and the Kyoto treaty, the treatment of Guantanamo and Abu Graib detainees, AIDS, third world debt, etc., was unfortunate. I don't know if that is because some of these may fall into another category, but there was certainly room for greater variety without losing the focus on Iraq. Posted by: A. Venesky at October 2, 2004 5:23 PM | Permalink A. Venesky's comment sparked this thought. Where was the question about furthering democracy in the world? For example, was it interesting that Iran was discussed concerning their nuclear program, but not their democratic movement. I examined the rhetoric, key words, in the transcript and thought I would share what I found. In fact, the word democracy was mentioned only 6 times in a transcript containing over 15,000 words. President Bush said it four times. Once in reference to Iraq and the other three times referring to Russia in response to Mr. Lehrer's question about Putin's reforms. Senator Kerry mentioned it twice, both times referring to Russia in response to the same question. Hmmmm, Mr. Lehrer was moderating a debate about foreign policy, right? American foreign policy? Exporting democracy? Defending liberty? Liberty was mentioned 4 times. Each time by the President, not once by Senator Kerry. Freedom was mentioned 11 times. President Bush mentioned it 9 times total, 8 times before Senator Kerry mentioned it once. All total, Senator Kerry mentioned it twice. Free? Free was the clear winner. Said 30 times (not counting one nuclear-weapons-free North Korea). President Bush said it 28 times, Senator Kerry - twice. In fact, the President said it 20 times before the Senator used it twice, his total, in the same sentence. The breakdown for Bush: --"given a chance to be free they [Afghanis] will show up at the polls",Obviously the candidates had different themes and democracy, liberty, freedom and being free was more a theme for the President than Senator Kerry. I wonder how much of that was influenced by the questions, defending foreign policy objectives, or message speak independent of what was asked? Posted by: Tim at October 2, 2004 7:21 PM | Permalink As a fun reference point, the President said hard or hardest 23 times. - hard work (11) And I've got to tell ya, that seemed like a lot!! Personally, I blame Lehrer for at least half of those. Posted by: Tim at October 3, 2004 12:21 AM | Permalink Oh, and Senator Kerry didn't say hard once! Not one single time! However, he did reiterate the trisyllabic synonym difficult. Posted by: Tim at October 3, 2004 12:33 AM | Permalink Should we simply trust you when you say these are the Lehrer questions? After all, you're a journalism professional, as is presumably Mr. Carl Cameron....
Published: October 3, 2004 ASHINGTON, Oct. 2 - Plenty of news media analysts thought Senator John Kerry looked good at Thursday night's presidential debate, but Fox News went a step further, posting a made-up news article on its Web site that quoted Mr. Kerry as gloating about his fine manicure and his "metrosexual" appearance. Fox News quickly retracted the article, saying in an editor's note on its Web site that the article "was written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast.'' It said, "We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice." The article, posted on Friday on foxnews.com, was written by Carl Cameron, the chief political correspondent for Fox News, and included several bogus quotes from Mr. Kerry, supposedly assessing his performance in the debate. Should we simply trust you when you say these are the Lehrer questions? After all, you're a journalism professional, as is presumably Mr. Carl Cameron.... Huh? The questions were taken from the transcript of the debate published by the New York Times, which is almost identical to the transcript published by the Washington Post. I don't even know why I am answering you, but there's your answer: Yes, you should trust me that these are the Lehrer questions. Simply? No, not simply. Posted by: Jay Rosen at October 3, 2004 11:15 PM | Permalink " D.C. mythology includes the "Jim Lehrer Illusion" - - that all people in the Capital do is sit around and rationally debate policy alternatives. In fact, Washington politics is heavily driven by cowardice, blackmail, deceit, fear, loyalty to old buddies and even older bodies, cooptation, corruption, sex, and just plain crime. Journalists who pretend otherwise either don't understand what is going on, or are part of the game." {-- Lew Rockwell} _________________________________ Posted by: Carl Wurden at October 4, 2004 3:10 PM | Permalink Jim Lerher performed reasonably effectively. Some have held that bias was displayed against the Bush campaign by virtue of the choice of issues covered. Does anyone really think it inappropriate to place emphasis, during a presidential debate, on the actual primary issues/concerns affecting our country? In general, I must agree that it would have been both counterproductive (considering time constraints of the debate), as well as impossble to do justice meaningfully characterizing a senate record as extensive as John Kerry's. I might add that, the mere fact of it's existence means he's more than sufficiently qualified (by comparison to that of a mere governorship such as Bush held prior to taking office) to run for the presidency. More importantly, it should be clear that the questions and overriding concerns here are not as much the record of the challenger as it is the actions and job performance of encumbant president, particularly when there is clear evidence such performance was inadequate. That is, whatever Kerry did or didn't do was in a relatively unrelated arena and had little chance of impacting the direction of America or the lives of most Americans. George Bush's choices, however, were of such consequence and immediacy and actually have resulted in irreparable, long-term damage. Hence, giving greater focus on such real world events and related campaign issues is emminently appropriate. If interested in an example of real bias, inappropriately supportive of the Bush campaign, simply refer to the second presidential debate. Nevertheless, each voter should take the responsibility to read, research and consider the issues. No one should rely either merely on the questions asked in a brief, organized debate (or even a series of them), or on the "analyses" of the debates by journalists/corporate media pundits. By doing so, you ensure that you will hear neither all of the important issues, nor the straight/whole truth (alas yes, often they really will distort the truth and/or actually state outright falsehoods/lies). Posted by: Neal at October 9, 2004 11:23 PM | Permalink |
|
Print
