Skip to content

We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away.

Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you.

Help Now >

Editorial: 'Barack v Hilary' - ABC Pulls no Punches

Free World Class Education
FREE Catholic Classes

George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson turned what was supposed to be a debate on substantive issues into a street brawl.

Highlights

By Deacon Keith Fournier
Catholic Online (https://www.catholic.org)
4/17/2008 (1 decade ago)

Published in Politics & Policy

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - From the moment the candidates stepped onto the stage in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, it was clear that the two moderators, George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson, intended to turn what was supposed to be a debate on substantive issues into a street brawl.

I am sure that the interested voters of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were expecting something quite different.

Initially they turned their barbs on the Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, directing charged question after question concerning the inflammatory remarks of his controversial former Pastor. His opponent, Senator Hilary Clinton, seemed only too eager to participate and piled on.

The Senator from Illinois has had little spring in his step recently, bogged down in a continual effort to weather controversy which erupted from his comments concerning people becoming bitter over economic difficulties and "cling(ing)to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

He tried once again to explain that he meant to say only that voters feel they are being ignored by those in elected office and "they end up being much more concerned about votes around things like guns where traditions have been passed on from generation to generation. And those are incredibly important to them." It did not seem to satisfy.

While her opponent was against the ropes, Senator Clinton threw her own verbal version of right hooks to the body. "People don't cling to their traditions on hunting and guns" out of frustration over government, she said.

However, as the evening progressed, just when she seemed to be the one who would be left standing when the barrage of verbal jabs was over, the two moderators turned to their adversarial manner toward her. Initially, they grilled her over her obvious lack of veracity in her accounts of the fictional "sniper fire" in Iraq.

In response to a stinging question, chosen by the moderators from a Pennsylvania voter and delivered on videotape, she attempted again to address her Bosnia landing as First Lady in 1996.

"I may be a lot of things but I am not dumb," she said. In this poor response she fared no better than her opponent, attempting to bob and weave instead of simply admitting that she did not tell the truth.

However, there was a real difference in the earlier part of the evening, Obama did not pile on. That would soon change.

The format of the evening was odd. Most segments began with Constitutional quotations which were clumsily used to begin new areas of discussion. The moderators also used videotaped questions from potential voters as a vehicle to elicit verbal bantering between the candidates.

Sadly, as the event continued, it became clear that this would not become a standard debate on the issues. At least initially, it was the equivalent of verbal fisticuffs, goaded on by the moderators.

Then, the discussion turned toward substantive public policy issues, such as the ongoing war in Iraq, income and capital gains taxes, the mortgage and credit crisis, affirmative action, gasoline prices and the palate of issues that most viewers expected to hear about.

However, the adversarial tenor from the moderators continued throughout the entire evening. They certainly did not ask neutral questions and seemed eager to be the ones who became the focus of attention.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, what was supposed to be an important "debate" began as a street brawl. It finally progressed, offering a discussion of substantive public policy issues between the candidates.

However, ABC did not seem to have public education and information in mind.They seemed to want to promote verbal fisticuffs.

It seemed to be an effort of the two moderators to distinguish themselves from their colleagues in the media. In doing so, they did not serve the public interest.

---


'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'


Copyright 2021 - Distributed by Catholic Online

Join the Movement
When you sign up below, you don't just join an email list - you're joining an entire movement for Free world class Catholic education.

Catholic Online Logo

Copyright 2024 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2024 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited.

Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law.