Saw your posts -- Call me crazy, but I always thought the job of journalists during a debate was to ask substantive questions which would help people decide where to cast their vote. I mean, aren't these the same guys who walk around complaining about issue-less elections, stage-managed campaigns and overly scripted candidates?
Does anybody really think Obama is secretly some kind of Weather Underground-loving, Nation of Islam revering, hate-America black nationalist in disguise? Does he owe these guys anything, in terms of contributions or support? Have they affected his policies at all?
Gibson and Stephanopoulos and every other journalist covering this campaign knows the answer to those questions. At least with Clinton's bimbo eruptions there was always the question of whether they were actually true, and whether they might affect his ability to govern.
But nobody with half a brain really believes any of these issues -- except maybe, his long association with Rev. Wright -- has anything to do with what he's actually done as a politician. I find it interesting that no one has connected any of this stuff to anything he's done as a senator or state rep.
Seems odd to me to spend so much time dissecting issues that people know aren't that germane. It would be nice if our news media spent more time trying to cut through the clutter than add to it....that's all i'm saying....
Eric Deggans
TV/Media Critic
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times
(I think Frank Rich and others who pointed out that ABC reaped what an entire news media sowed were exactly right. You can't excuse Charlie Gibson but you can't say he and George S. were just a couple of bad apples. And while we're at it, that CNN "Compassion Forum" deserves to have a truckload of manure dumped on it, too.--AB)
