Discussion: CNBC Moderators Defend Debate Questions After GOP Criticism (VIDEO)

Discussion for article #242299

If the republican party doesn’t think the media is fair why don’t they host and moderate a debate that the various media companies can choose to show if they want or the republicans can just post online. Sure it will be a bunch of softball questions with no follow up but then people and the media can look it over and point out what bs they see.

5 Likes

What a bunch of whining tittybabies’ the Republican clown college candidates are. That clusterfu*k last night was the result of egoistic, know-nothing, vacuous and whining Rightie shills trying to get traction and be noticed. They aren’t used to having actually to answer a question or defend specifics. When a cesspool like that pool of GOP freaks is stirred, it’s bound to stink. If you can’t handle questions you don’t like, tough question, or factual questions, then stay the hell outta’ politics. Period.

3 Likes

They say you can’t be pro if you can only play on a dry field. That goes for candidates and moderators alike. If the CNBC jokers knew there was an organized effort to upend that debate they should have come prepared for that. Concise, supported questions and the backbone to call out deflection and dodging. The candidates acted liked spoiled brats for sure but those CNBC’rs enabled it.

I think Trump and the Boyz are on to something. The media is afraid to go after them.

12 Likes

You know you’re seriously into Bizarro World territory when it’s the candidates doing the grilling, and the media moderators getting grilled.

Next up, who will be the next to drop out? John Harwood, Sharon Epperson, Dana Bash, Chris Matthews?

Who in the Lamestream Media has what it takes to go the distance?

Join us on the Road to 2016!

2 Likes

There are several things wrong with the GOP debates other than the entertainment value, which after the 3rd one now is seriously dwindling. It never feels like any one of the candidates are running for the highest and most important job in the country. I put that on the candidates. Its one big joke to most of them that are only running to grift, and have no chance at all of becoming President…Most of us, if we’re really honest about that, already know this. But heaven forbid they get rid of 4 or 5%ers running for office or consign them to a different forum at a different date or time…

Secondly, the idea of having ten people on a stage willing to follow rules involving time limits instead of a free-for-all is also on the candidates, not the moderators…The moderators couldn’t herd that particular bunch of cats if they tried. And like children, the candidates all seem to think its their nature and their right to act out and not be responsible for having to follow any rules anyway.

Third, CNBC in particular was all about representing a niche group of the investors class on Wall Street. That is in many respects who the GOP in general defends and goes out of their way to protect, both in Congress and through their policies as candidates, regardless of a few populist comments here and there that might suggest otherwise. J. Marshall talked about that weird sympatico with the investor class in his editorials and how it made for a really bad debate both by the questioners and the candidates…at least that was my takeaway. As such, the moderators were not focused on the economic plight of the majority of citizens in the country, and their blind-spot in not addressing income inequality left a lot to be desired even though Republican candidates have all now adopted this line in their stump speeches. All the Horatio Alger stories in the world couldn’t fill that huge gap no matter how much the candidates talked about how they would make life better for the average citizen. I know at CNBC addressing poverty was never gonna happen on a debate billed to talk about the economy, but not addressing issues related to the middle-class was equally shameful. Instead questions led to ridiculous convoluted non-answers by the candidates over marginal tax rates, etc., that no sane person could relate to. Instead, they filled time with buzzwords and phrases that conveyed nothing by way of policy specifics. It was literally divorced from reality from the way most people actually live their lives.

Fourthly, why the hell do these cable companies insist on having 10 bozos on stage at once, competing for who can make the most quips, glib remarks and waste the most time. Nothing can be followed up on, and refusal to answer specific questions by the candidates is always bypassed by moderators due to time constraints, in favor of moving along to the next question that results in the same dead-end. Nothing is explored, nothing is confronted when its clearly misleading or an outright lie. The entire exercise never goes beyond basic introductions and claptrap responses.

Lastly, complaining about the media is a particularly time honored tradition, particularly among the GOP. Their animus towards what they see as the Librul Media is a staple means of deflection. If CNBC is the Librul Media…I’ll eat my hat, as they say. Why the moderators couldn’t defend their roles and debunk that absurdity from the beginning is beyond me. They are so rightwing on CNBC, that most of them encouraged the TParty from the start, disparaged the 99% movement and OWS, and fought against anything that exposed the disgusting greed on Wall Street. When salaries + compensation packages + bonuses for CEOs were exposed as 300xs what the average person makes in the workplace, CNBC was there to defend every inch of that culture of greed. They are worse than Faux Nooze in so many respects. They kept the myth of the genius CEO alive, who couldn’t afford to lose their seat at the table because there would be no one else willing to replace them for less. Bullshit. They protected greedy financiers throughout the Great Recession. They continued to sell shit in a can and still call it filet mignon, and well past its due date if there is one on shit in a can.

The debate sucked because frankly the cadre of weak-minded GOP candidates suck and basically no one has a clue how to whittle down the field and demand better from our elected officials…especially and particularly corporate America. These debates long ago became divorced from what’s good for the country as a civic exercise in democracy. Its just another infotainment endeavor, selling a prime time show with politics as its backdrop. Call it “Who Wants To Be A President”? They’re already fucking millionaires.

9 Likes

Ooh! Ooh! How about a debate where the Republican candidates are the moderators asking questions of the “Main Stream Media?” FOX News and CNBC and CNN and MSNBC and whomever could all go at it, trying to see how many questions they can avoid answering while blaming the RNC for not treating them fairly!

2 Likes

“They are hoping that people don’t really care about the facts and I think they are wrong about that,” Epperson said in response.

Sharon, we’re talking about people willing to vote for Republicans. Of COURSE they don’t care about facts.

3 Likes

5 out of the last 6 elections have been won by Democrats and tonight again showed us why. Soon it will be 6 out of 7.

When Ted Cruz gets applause for describing the field of Democratic candidates as “Bolsheviks and Mensheviks” you know they don’t want no stinkin’ facts.

2 Likes

Blaming the media is a time-honored Republican ploy. It makes the candidates look stupid and unprepared. If you don’t want hard-hitting questions, get out of the game. At the same time, the CNBC questions were just as dumb as the candidates.

Your idea needs a little work. Always remember the First Commandment of TV: “Know Your Audience.”

So let’s throw some ideas out there and drill down to where we want to be.

How about a competition to determine which media moderators make the cut to appear in the debate? Drop them off on an island, make them do things like eat bugs, enter into questionable and shifting alliances with each other, stab each other in the back, all to survive?

Or maybe each debate moderator needs to raise a certain amount of money to qualify – you know, to ensure that they too have “skin in the game.” Contestants would submit questions they would like to ask candidates and be awarded points on a dollar-by-dollar basis. Viewers would determine the winners by voting online and with their smart phones.

Or maybe send trackers to follow the moderators as they prepare for the debate? Look, John Harwood got a zit on his forehead under his pancake makeup! Anderson Cooper made an off-camera crack about Rachel Maddow! Chris Mathews wears a girdle when he’s onstage! You know – humanize them.

Hey, I’m just trying to get the ball rolling.

3 Likes

Barring the island, isn’t that what’s pretty much happening right now? :smile:

I think it should be the Republican Hunger Games. Last tribute standing, wins.

1 Like

Hey, I like the way you think! Let’s get into the AllieBean business!

It’ll be huuuuge!

1 Like

Seriously, moderators have to analyze X number of position papers and ask questions based on that analysis. League of Women Voters scores the questions, selects the moderators. If a candidate doesn’t have a position paper, they can’t come to the debate.

3 Likes

OMG, that audience!
I’d swear we were watching “Monday Night Rehabilitation”

1 Like

I’d like a chance to come up with the horrifying ‘natural’ phenomena that drive them together into physical battle. That would be like Christmas and my birthday all rolled into one.

People could bid to send ‘help’ to the candidates and we could then donate it to Planned Parenthood.

We could even do it with the moderators. They compete on a separate location to see who gets to ask the questions.

God, I miss Jon Stewart…

1 Like

I was going to suggest – in response to a very substantive critique of the debate from SRfromGR upthread – a debate conducted by the League of Women Voters in the context of a publicly-financed campaign.

But then I thought, Substantive? On TV? Nah - it’ll never get past the focus group.

Next!

3 Likes

The very interesting question that was not brought up, and which pours a bucket of cold water on to the right wing cries that the moderator were a bunch of liberals out to get them, was, in a debate about the economy, they never asked about the two year budget framework that Congress just passed that very day.

Because not a candidate (besides Paul who stupidly believes the way to enforce budget discipline is not in making the budget, but in refusing to pay the bills after they have been incurred), wanted to have that discussion. They are all breathing a sigh of relief that it got passed so they don’t have to campaign with the economy cratering around them caused solely by their own party’s nuttiness. And they don’t want to have to say that to a base that WANTS the economy to crater around them because…nuttiness FTW!!

I am pretty sure Maddow, for example, would have nailed each and every one of them with that question. But CNBC? Not a chance.

3 Likes

I like the “‘natural’ phenomena that drive them together into physical battle” idea if we could work in a sexy kill or injury, but that Planned Parenthood tie-in sounds too depressing.

Hey, while we’re spitballing here, how about a Shark Tank style format?

Everyone submits a business plan to a panel of seasoned investors.

Example: consider Donald Trump’s visionary plan for his first day in office:

Restructure the assets and outstanding debt of the US;

Create a real estate investment trust that includes all natural parks, monuments and federal lands,

Create tax incentives for a limited-liability public-private partnership that we’ll call USA, LLC;

Arbitrage the interest on the national debt against the accounts receivables, and leverage it against the unfunded liabilities;

USA, LLC makes an offer for a leveraged buyout of the USA, contingent upon a hold-harmless clause agreement for the LLC, in the event of wars, natural or economic disasters or any acts of God, and

Close escrow on Inauguration Day 2017 before the first monthly payment is due!

USA, LLC is now free and clear of all liabilities and encumbrances, and we could do it using Other People’s Money!

2 Likes