The Political Chase

CNN debates are disgraceful

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, CNN deserves a rating of -10. Quite simply they are next to impossible to watch. I had that impression after watching the last Democratic debate, but decided to hold my opinion until after the GOP debate last night. And while their debates are generally horrendous, Wolf Blitzer’s moderation, as demonstrated in the Democratic debate is on par, at best, with Chris Wallace and Brit Hume of Fox News. I was elated that Anderson Cooper moderated last night’s debate. Not because Cooper’s moderation skills are so high (he doesn’t know what follow-up is), but just pleased that Blitzer was not in charge.

When it comes to debates, CNN has dropped to the pitiful depths of Fox News’ approach to jouranlism. Forget journalism. Ratings and entertainment are far more important.

Last night CNN failed to address the most compelling issues, but instead asked questions that fuel polarization between voters and appealed to only the most radical elements of the Republican party. There was basically no focus on asking questions that would allow a viewer to compare the respective parties and candidates. If you were looking for pure red meat, did not care about the issues facing both parties and wanted to watch a third-party instigate a fight between two candidates, last night’s debate scored 10+.

In Salon, Walter Shapiro provides an excellent analysis:

[W]hat sent me into a free fall of depression was CNN’s instinct for the fatuous in choosing the debate questions. It is a disgrace that in a two-hour debate (it felt longer) there was not a single question about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the powder keg in Pakistan or Iran. The fault is not with the earnest YouTubers who sent in questions. The blame entirely rests with Anderson Cooper (a debate host who seemed incapable of asking a relevant follow-up question) and his CNN cohorts, who seemed more concerned with goosing the ratings than with grasping the world that the next president will inherit.

I found it almost impossible to watch all of the last Democratic debate on CNN. Not because Blitzer generated answers that differed from my views, but instead it was the manner in whiich he framed the questions, the pressure he put on candidates in follow-up questions when they didn’t give an answer he wanted, and the lack of follow-up to answers that should have been probed more. For example, when he asked Hillary Clinton if she supported giving drivers license to undocumented workers, she said “No.” Blitzer did not ask her why she changed her position from the MSNBC debate two-weeks earlier and why did it take her two weeks to make a decision. When asking Barack Obama the same question he pointedly grilled Obama for a simple yes/no answer and refused to accept Obama’s attempt to explain his answer.

Matthew Yglesias captured it perfectly:

Wolf Blitzer’s main interest is in asking questions designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of public opinion, even if those questions are about things like driver’s licenses or “merit pay” for teachers that aren’t really under federal purview. Efforts to reframe those questions by putting those topics in the larger context of immigration policy more generally or education more generally are derided as cowardly dodges. The point, after all, is to force a choice — piss off an interest group, or say something that could be used in a GOP attack ad.