An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos
Voicing my outrage over the lowest moment for the American media
An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos
Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,
It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnessed, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, collegial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.
With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.
You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.
You asked about gun control -- phrased to try for a "gotcha" in a state where that's such a divisive issue -- but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative.
Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate -- a full hour -- on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn't even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I'm not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and "bitter" were never newsworthy -- I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant -- but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn't, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright "loved America" and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.
Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at -- do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don't insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.
Here's a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were "taking notes" when he urged you to ask a question about Obama's supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground -- which in fact you did? With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions - by pandering to divisive radio shows?
And Charlie...could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren't millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.
But I'm not ready to make nice. What I just watched was an outrage. As a journalist, you appeared to confirm all of the worst qualities that cause people to hold our profession in such low esteem, especially your obsession with cornering the candidates with lame "trick" questions and your complete lack of interest or concern about substance -- or about the American people, or the state of our nation. You embarrassed some good people who work at ABC News -- for example, the journalists who worked hard to break this story just last week -- and you embarrassed yourselves. The millions of people who watched the debate were embarrassed, too -- at the state of our political discourse, and what it has finally become, at long last.
Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter: This. Must. Stop. Tonight, if possible. I thought that we had hit rock bottom in March 2003, when we failed to ask the tough questions in the run-up to the Iraq war. But this feels even lower. We need to pick ourselves up, right now, and start doing our job -- to take a deep breath and remind ourselves of what voters really need to know, and how we get there, that's it's not all horse-race and "gotcha." Although, to be blunt, I would also urge the major candidates in 2012 to agree only to debates that are organized by the League of Women Voters, with citizen moderators and questioners. Because we have proven without a doubt in 2008 that working journalists don't deserve to be the debate "deciders."
Charlie, I'm going to sign off this letter the way that you always sign off the news, that "I hope you had a great day."
Because America just had a horrible night.
Sean Hannity had his footprints all over this. Talk about tabloid TV. He along with FOX and its "all stars" are a hateful bunch. Go Obama.— Gregory- "Here's a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were "taking notes" when he urged you to ask a question about Obama's supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground -- which in fact you did. With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions, by pandering to divisive radio shows?"
No, we can't possibly ask Obama about his ties to radical liberals.
Nor should we ask why he never had a problem with his pastor's radical viewpoints until those views became widely known.
This is absurd, Will. The Dem nomination will not be decided by the voters at this point - only by the superdelegates. EVERYTHING being done from this point up until late August is predicated upon that fact.
And the role of the superdelegates is to decided who has the better chance in November against McCain. PERIOD.
Because McCain and the GOP will beat these kind of issues like a rented mule. Just like the eventual nominee will beat any McCain scandals or gaffs in the same manner.
So you can either seek your liberal debate utopia.
Or look at electoral and political reality. You've got two boneheads in this race. The GOP has chosen their bonehead. May the least objectionable bonehead win.
— db_cooper 
Comment removed.- This letter provides the argument for removing the media as debate moderators. They should no more create the framework and control what is asked of candidates than a political party. Corporate interests conflict with voters' and the public's interest. All political debates should return to moderation by disinterested non-profit third party organizations and agents, such as the League for Women Voters. The media has actively undermined the ability of voters to be informed about substantive issues and candidates' stances and qualifications. Instead, the public is subjected to corporate propaganda packaged as "fair coverage" and ratings trickery disguised as "debate questions and political coverage". ABC News, meanwhile, has quashed the BUsh torture story, which shhould be intensively reported, fully investigated and contain reportage free from bais and corporate and individual conflicts of interest.— Annie
- Boneheads indeed. And the media have shown that they too are boneheads, instead of a CHECK on the boneheads running or aspiring to run this country. Heckuva job Brownie!— speedtats
- ABC = Fox News, O Reilly, Hannity and Dobbs with its moderation or should I say sensationalism of the worse kind of pandering to slime.— fedupcitizen
- You are on point with your analysis of that debate. I expected much more from Gibson and Stepowhatiznamis myself. Just briefly about these blogs and comments: Reverend Wright, 1960's movements...complete BS. Attaching blame to someone for another person's views because you happen to know them is a fascist approach and it's un-American. The same people who post angry right wing blog responses, and tout the 2nd amendment, judge people guilty by association. The problem is these folks would attack anyone who disagrees with their positions even slightly. As if Obama should have stood up and smacked his pastor for thinking differently. America is more than the free market economy, flag pins and guns. It's about the right to disagree, and to be an individual. But there is no "disagreement" in these statements, only name calling or tabloid driven opinions, which is sad. If you really care about flag pins, church sermons...then you effectively have no opinion. Not one that matters anyway.— Joyner80
- "then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive."
Except that Obama lied in response to the questioning about wearing a flag pin:
Obama: "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins. This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us," he said.
Which is a lie. Obama said this in October 2007:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin," Obama said. "Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
You know, Will, if you spent more time checking the claims of your favorite politicians and less time fawning over them (in other words, if you did YOUR job as a reporter), maybe us citizen journalists wouldn't have to do this fact checking ourselves.
— db_cooper - You have no place to criticize anyone. You work for a rag and YOUR paper happily published all of the stories that were brought up in the first part of the debate. If you had any credibility, you would quit, but then again, you don't.— Steak
- Thanks Will....I couldn't have said it better myself! Our media is a disgrace.....We Can Do Better! Barbara— barbarakeiser
Obama was correct -- there are plenty of bitter people here in Pennsylvania. In frustration, they cling to their left wing talking points.— Mr. Smith- I'm a Hillary supporter who will vote for Obama if he wins...Maybe it's just me, but most of these blogging complaints appear to be coming from Obama suppoters..We bloggers are the blame for the questions the media asks...We are all interested in the gotcha questions or which candidate lied 10, 20, 30, years ago...And because the "annoited one" fumbled a few times, the Obama supporters are out for ABC's juggler vein...I thought Hillary said it right, when it's over, no matter who wins, the parties have to get together to win the White House...Pennsylvania's the final test for Hillary, if she wins big, with the amount of money Obama has spent there, he's better start sweating..What if Hillary goes on the same kind of roll Obama did??...Five days are going to tell the tale...If Pennsylvania is close, it'll be the beginning of the end for Hillary and she'll know it...— dbaragona
- This had nothing to do with "debate"and everything to do with showing up the candidates and building up the attention given to the journalists. The candidates need to refuse to to appear at any further "debates" in this election or any future elections uuntil the rules are rewritten, fair and impartial moderators are identfied, and the news media is covering theevent and not staging it for their own benefit or the benefit of their corporate owners. BOYCOTT DISNEY!— Molly
- Great Article! The problem is that the reporters, and even journalists all now want to be celebrities. Because of the 24 hour cable news cycle, they need time to fill so these so called experts of the people's opinons slice and dice what THEY think the people's reaction will be, Its not so bad to ask Obama questions about his ties to people in his life, but the problem lies in when he actually answers the questions, the piranna in the tabloid main stream media are looking to pick every little answer apart to pounce on it for the next great scandel. I mean Obama knows these radicals because they live in his neighborhood, so what! He sat on a charity board with some guy he barey knows, so what! The media will try to paint him as having some agenda to blow something up now. Our media is a JOKE! Our country is DUMB, and has such a short attention span that we cant even understand that we are being led down a second path to a second war. this time in Iran, and people are worring about whether or no Obama wears his flag pin! Then people wonder why we are falling behind China and India, and losing all of the great jobs! We are becoming a third world nation, and we have no one to blame but ourselves if we let it happen to us!— Gamblndan
- Hey Will: HA HA!!!! Awwwwwww poor wittle Willy! Your freakin' Messiah proved he's a lightweight, got pwned by substantive questions and you got your panties in a predictable knot!! Your pathetic Pravda has been shilling for St. Obama from day one and there he is dodging, stammering, and proving his complete, utter inability to handle the job. You suck, Will. You will always suck. LJL represents the perfect prototype of the people who celebrate this mediocrity: "fawn over the pedophile-protecting nazi pope in faux christian" Yeah that's it Nazi pope. Obama lover are we? Substanceless, shrill, childish, losers all of you. McCain is going to stomp on this guy and you will cry like little f'n babies about neocons and Fox News and right wingers and all your usually one-liner BS that continues to fail to acknowledge that you CANNOT WIN. F Obama and most of all F his idiotic, baby supporters.— Jack Klompus
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
