Do Liberals Understand the Concept of Honesty?

I just read a column by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker entitled "The GOP's Outlandish Debate Proposal".  It makes me question whether a super-liberal like Lizza can recognize reality.  Lizza starts his piece with eight paragraphs of background about supposed problems faced by the Republican party, but finally gets to the issue of the items demanded by certain campaigns for future debates.  First Lizza quotes the so-called demands and then comments:

"In addition, based on their evaluation of previous debates, the campaigns wish to have in all future debates a minimum 30-second opening statement and a minimum 30-second closing statement for each participant; candidate pre-approval of any graphics and bios you plan to include in your broadcast about each candidate, and that there be no “lightning rounds” because of their frivolousness or “gotcha” nature, or in some cases both."

"Most people would agree that the Republican (and Democratic) Parties should have some say in how the debates are run and organized. These are, after all, not just news events or typical media interviews. They are partnerships between the media and a political party. It’s fair that the mechanics of the debate, such as the format, length of time, rules, and the moderators, should all be up for negotiation. For instance, the R.N.C. asked its mainstream-media partners to add a conservative media outlet to the events, to insure that the questioning would reflect some of the issues important to Republican primary voters."

 

So Lizza says that most of the "demands" are fine.

 

Then Lizza gets to the nub of his story.  He says, "What the candidates shouldn’t be allowed to do is tell reporters what questions to ask or what graphics to show on the screen".  So, the demand to rule out lightning round questions is just wrong according to Lizza.  We all remember past lightning round questions from 2012 when the CNN moderator asked "Coke or Pepsi?" and then "Jay Leno or David Letterman?" and other questions so idiotic that thousands of people turned off the debate in disgust.  The truth is that even beyond the nonsensical questions, the candidates are just demanding that they be allowed to have a short time to explain their answers.  A lightning round that asks by a show of hands who would set up a no-fly zone in Syria (for example) merits a more complete answer than yes or no.  It is not controlling the questions asked, but rather the ability of the candidates to answer completely.

 

Then there's the prior approval of graphics and bios.  At the last debate, CNBC used graphics filled with inaccuracies.  For example, the network forgot that Jeb Bush had been governor of Florida for eight years.  For the candidates to see the stuff in advance so that it can be corrected is hardly ceding editorial control.  Without a doubt, an agreement between the networks and the candidates could be reached on this issue.

 

But let's go back to Ryan Lizza.  Where's the outlandish proposal of which he speaks?  It doesn't exist, but Lizza still calls it outlandish anyway.  Lizza is like Harry Reid announcing that Mitt Romney didn't pay his taxes for ten years.  It's a lie.  The media knows it's a lie.  The libs do it anyway; they don't seem to understand the concept of honesty.