Taking your ball and going home

I’m sure all of my politically minded friends have seen what transpired at the last Republican debate, as well as the aftermath.

It was the usual tactic of attacking the media, saying that they were giving them “gotcha” questions, accusing them of being liberal, blah blah blah.

And this debate was on CNBC! The same CNBC whose Rick Santelli gave birth to the freakin’ teabaggers! Give me a break.

Anyway, it didn’t stop with several candidates piling on the media at the debate. Subsequently, the RNC decided to cancel the debate that it was holding with NBC because of their supposed liberal bias. I guess “liberal bias” means everything except for ass-kissing ClusterFox. ::eye roll::

Granted, some of the questions from the CNBC moderators were phrased poorly. However, the accusation of the Republicans that CNBC asked no “substantive questions” is absolutely absurd. They asked plenty of substantive questions, including about how so many of the answers and plans just did not add up. In other words, they were doing their job as journalists. The accusation that CNN wasn’t hard on the candidates at the Democratic debate is also absurd. They asked hard questions and pressed the candidates for answers, even putting them on the hot seat with questions to Sanders about his electability and to Clinton about her private email server. It was not “Which of you is more handsome and wise?” as Ted Cruz put it.

Here’s the thing: journalists are supposed to be journalists. They are supposed to ask questions about the candidates’ positions on various issues, and if the answers don’t make a lot of sense or don’t add up, or if the candidate just refuses to answer the question, they are supposed to press them on it. Debates are not held to let candidates have a free forum in which to speak uninterrupted or without further questioning. They are held to showcase the candidates’ positions, the difference between all the candidates, and it is the actual, bona fide JOB of the moderators to ask follow-up questions.

So the Republicans have decided that that is unacceptable and are calling for people like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to moderate upcoming debates. I find this quite amusing on several levels.

First, they are coming across as petulant children who don’t like being challenged. At the first sign of criticism, they have decided they are going to pick up their ball and go home.

Second, if anyone thinks that Hannity or Limbaugh is unbiased and will be a fair moderator, let me just say right here that you need to go see someone because you are delusional.

Finally, if these candidates are going to bitch and moan about how the CNBC moderators and the “liberal media” are being mean to them, how in the hell do they think they are going to play with various actors on the global stage? If Putin disrespects them, are they going to throw a hissy fit? If Kim Jong-un decides to test a bomb, are they going to get the vapors and take to their room and cry themselves to sleep?

Come ON.

One more thing about this. This article by David Atkins at Political Animal raises an excellent question about whether or not the media and journalists everywhere will stand up to what is essentially bullying of their profession and an attempt at controlling the message. It’s a legitimate concern. You know who else controlled the media, right? Sure you do. Don’t make me Godwin myself.

Tell ‘em how it’s done, Ted

Thursday evening, I was very pleased to attend a lecture given by journalist Ted Koppel. He’s well-known for his amazing hair, and I was delighted to find out that he’s much more than a pretty ‘do.

He began by talking about how he wanted to conduct his lecture and subsequent question and answer session in a way that we seem to have lost lately...he wanted to have a civil discourse. He bemoaned the lack of civility in the current atmosphere of discord and hatred, and he seemed to transcend party politics, showing that it IS possible to be a voice of reason in an unreasonable world.

He spoke at length about the state of journalism today. When he started out, news divisions were not moneymakers for the three networks. It was a given that they would lose money. They operated under the credo of reporting what people needed to know. Matters of importance to the national interest, things that they deemed worth knowing. They felt they were providing a certain level of public service, and reported accordingly. With the advent of “60 Minutes,” the networks realized that news could make money, and that’s when things changed. Instead of giving the people what they needed, they made the shift to giving people what they wanted. After all, ratings meant money, and if people wanted lighter news and entertainment stories, they drove the ratings. He gave the obvious example of the news cycle last week: Libya, our budget crisis, the devastation in Japan...and what was the number one news story? Charlie Sheen, of course. He seemed saddened by this, and so am I.

This was a fairly conservative crowd, but Koppel pandered to no one. He said that FoxNews is obviously biased and partisan...but so is MSNBC. He said that talk radio is most definitely not journalism, said that NPR is great journalism (with a full disclosure that he does occasional work for NPR) and we must continue to fund this national treasure, and that the New York Times is the best newspaper in the world (while admitting that there would be some there who disagree and think the NYT is far too liberal). He talked about the travesty of not raising taxes in a time of war, saying that it was negligent to go to war without funding it by raising taxes, and that it has never been done in our country until now.

He spoke at length of what is going on in Libya, and had some thought-provoking questions. If our goal in Libya is a humanitarian one, why didn’t we intervene in Sudan? The Congo? Ivory Coast? Millions are being slaughtered in these places, so why did we not stop those regimes from killing their own citizens? His point was that there is always more to the story, and there are always national interests that might not be expressed overtly. He illustrated this with a story about a supposed conversation between Charles DeGaulle and David Ben Gurion. Some argument or incident occurred, and Ben Gurion told DeGaulle, “I thought you were my friend.” DeGaulle replied, “Men have friends; nations have interests.”

Someone asked him a question and said that it seems that Israel is our only friend in the middle east. After the questioner rambled on a bit longer, Koppel began his response by saying, “I’m going to have to disagree with your basic premise there, about Israel being our only friend in the middle east.” He went on to say that we may not like everything that certain nations do, but when it comes to diplomacy, friendship is a relative term. After all, the Shah of Iran was our good buddy for quite some time, despite his oppressive regime; when the people finally gave him the boot, we ended up with the Ayatollah Khomeini. He brought up the point that although we may get rid of Mubarak in Egypt, or Qaddafi in Libya, we have no way of knowing who or what will replace those regimes. Will they be friendly to us? We don’t know that yet. He said that we seem to think that democracy just somehow magically happens, but it is actually a long, drawn-out, and often bloody process.

I thought he struck a very realistic note about international diplomacy. It’s not always black and white, and we walk a fine line between helping people and intervening in their affairs. (I’m reminded of the Star Trek Prime Directive.) In our current situation, it’s very easy for anyone not in the President’s shoes to be talking about what they would or wouldn’t do. I suspect that any of us in that situation would struggle with the decisions that need to be made, and not make any of them lightly.

One thing that Koppel mentioned several times was that we “need to be informed.” It’s a complex world out there, with complex problems, and as citizens, we need to pay attention to what is going on out there. Although he didn’t say this, I’ll continue the thought. There is nothing wrong with being entertained. I think we all need that if we want to keep our sanity in an increasingly insane world. I enjoy my books, my music, movies, TV shows...but balance that with knowing what is happening in your community, your state, your country, and your world. It belongs to all of us, and we owe it a little more attention than we do some drug-addled pseudo-celebrity’s latest shoplifting spree or coke-fueled Vegas party weekend.

I enjoyed his lecture immensely. Ted Koppel is a class act, and we are all better informed because of him. He worked hard to do his job for many years, and he inspired me to continue to work hard at being informed.