I wrote last night about the GOP debate. I spoke only of the candidates, however. I think it's worth taking a moment to critique the performance of the Fox moderators and the media. I thought it was not good.
1. The moderators went through a two hour debate without any discussion of the economy. Ted Cruz brought up economic growth as a way to pay for a larger military, but the other candidates did not even get to discuss the subject. I realize that terrorism is a big subject, but isn't the economy important enough to cover? Of course it is.
2. The questions from youtube "celebrities" were lame. One turned out to be a Bernie Sanders activist. She asked about rising hate crimes against Moslems. Of course, the problem is that most hate crimes in the USA last year were committed not against Moslems but against Jews, and a fair number of those were actually committed by Moslems. The second most frequent target of hate crimes was African Americans. But we get a question that tells us that it is the Moslem community that is being targeted. So we get a question from a Bernie Sanders activist based upon a lie. It shouldn't have happened.
3. The video montage questions were good television, but they were unfair tactics. First, the ploy was only used against Cruz and Rubio. Why are they the only ones to get hit. It would have been easy, for example, to compile video proof that Chris Christie supported Sonia Sotomayor, gun control, and the like, things he denied at the last debate. Instead, Megyn Kelly asked Rubio if he wanted to change his prior statement in which he pointed out all these Christie positions. It was as if she endorsed the phony Christie position.
4. There were almost no follow up questions. When a candidate avoided a question, the moderators just went on to the next person.
Overall, Bret Baier performed far better than either Megyn Kelly or Chris Wallace, but the Fox News performance was just second rate.
1. The moderators went through a two hour debate without any discussion of the economy. Ted Cruz brought up economic growth as a way to pay for a larger military, but the other candidates did not even get to discuss the subject. I realize that terrorism is a big subject, but isn't the economy important enough to cover? Of course it is.
2. The questions from youtube "celebrities" were lame. One turned out to be a Bernie Sanders activist. She asked about rising hate crimes against Moslems. Of course, the problem is that most hate crimes in the USA last year were committed not against Moslems but against Jews, and a fair number of those were actually committed by Moslems. The second most frequent target of hate crimes was African Americans. But we get a question that tells us that it is the Moslem community that is being targeted. So we get a question from a Bernie Sanders activist based upon a lie. It shouldn't have happened.
3. The video montage questions were good television, but they were unfair tactics. First, the ploy was only used against Cruz and Rubio. Why are they the only ones to get hit. It would have been easy, for example, to compile video proof that Chris Christie supported Sonia Sotomayor, gun control, and the like, things he denied at the last debate. Instead, Megyn Kelly asked Rubio if he wanted to change his prior statement in which he pointed out all these Christie positions. It was as if she endorsed the phony Christie position.
4. There were almost no follow up questions. When a candidate avoided a question, the moderators just went on to the next person.
Overall, Bret Baier performed far better than either Megyn Kelly or Chris Wallace, but the Fox News performance was just second rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment