Disgusting Media Spins the Debate

by John Keller
by John Keller

I managed to catch only snippets of the previous Republican debates until this past Wednesday. Usually, the highlights from YouTube provided better insight than sitting through the actual live feed. Now I know why. Here's a snapshot of the first six questions, with some analysis. Let's see if we can pick out the missing subtext to each question, and the overall theme of the debate. I've called out the media's deliberate use of various tactics before, but Wednesday night's showing is one for the record books.

Question 1: Schmaltzy Lead in rather than a question.

Question 2: Will you make America a "sanctuary city" country?

Posed To: Rudy and Mitt (~2 minutes each)

Analysis: Rudy and Mitt bloody each other up. Mitt gets the best of Rudy, with the audience actually booing Benito down at the end. "Are you suggesting Mr. Mayor...if you hear someone with a funny accent, you as a homeowner should go out there and ask to see their papers?" Classic.

Question 3: Will you pledge to veto amnesty for Illegal Aliens?

Posed To: Fred Thompson (90 sec), Rudy (30 sec), John McCain (90 sec), Tom Tancredo (30 sec)

Analysis: Fred is awful, mumbling a series of wandering, droopy-dog non-sequiturs. Takes pot shots at Rudy and Mitt, and flubs the one-liner. Rudy defends his record as a socialist mayor. McCain tries to imitate a "voice of wisdom," ends with compassionate conservative. Tancredo refers to himself in the third person several times. Yikes.

Question 4: With immigration reform failing, will I have a job?

Posed To: Tancredo (90 sec), Hunter (90 sec)

Analysis: Tancredo makes a decent case against immigration and guest workers, even dancing around the economic problems of wage and price. Hunter goes on about San Diego border fence, the results, and pledges to build the Southern Superfence across our entire Mexican border.

Question 5: Lower college tuition rates – military families or illegals?

Posed To: Huckabee (90 sec), Romney (90 sec)

Analysis: Huckabee reveals his socialist props in preacher smooth intonation. Content is awful, but the delivery is smooth. This reminds me of Martin Sheen as President Greg Stillson in The Dead Zone ("The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, Hallelujah!"). He is dangerous.

Mitt takes a good swipe at Big Mike, and pulls a Ronald Reagan "Mike, that's not your money." Mike gets his hackles up after being poked in the chest. It will be interesting to see him react in future debates; his rising star is sure to draw more barbs from Mitt and Rudy, until they figure out whose running mate he's going to be.

Question 6: Do you believe in a conspiracy to make a new union?

Posed To: Ron Paul (90 sec)

Analysis: The question itself is designed to make Ron look like a conspiracy theorist lunatic. Handpicked by the CNN Commissars, and posed to the sole libertarian-republican on stage, they are clearly looking to create the Dean Scream moment. Dr. Paul answers the question with poise, from an informed point of view, and manages to work in a few points about illegal immigration tied to a funded superhighway without looking like a card-carrying member of the Chemtrails Club.

At this point, Ron Paul supporters realize it's going to be a long night. The good Doctor alone has been excluded from answering a question on illegal immigration. If you believe the "debates" are on the up and up, this is especially puzzling. Dr. Paul is a border state congressman with a highly informed opinion; in fact he is stridently against illegal immigration, and is the only candidate from either party suggesting that birth-right citizenship be ended (Sorry Tancredo fans). Talk about missing a golden opportunity to liven up the debate. This however, reveals the true purpose of the "debates" as a free ad forum for the anointed candidates. Understood in this light, things make more sense.

Here is a guess at CNN's unspoken editorial rules for the debate, based on the questions posed, and the amount of time given to each candidate:

1) Give plenty of face time to the poll leaders, Mitt and Rudy. Presidential interviewing favors are curried in advance, viewership is maximized, and the commercial interests backing the "safe" candidates remain loyal CNN advertisers. If the leaders stumble, so much the better, it makes for great TV.

2) Give the second tier candidates, Thompson, McCain and Huckabee, enough time to make a break for the front, or fall further back in their campaign. Wednesday's debate was a live simultaneous viewing of Huckabee ascendant and the McCain implosion.

3) Mostly ignore the laggards, Tancredo and Hunter, giving them just enough time to remind us they're still on stage, but no real chance to score points. They're dead men walking, so why bother now. If they slip into a Veep slot on a Republican ticket it'll be with one of the anointed leaders, so who cares.

4) Finally, marginalize that nut-job, Ron Paul. Give him questions designed to be no-win. Answer well, and score few points with a national viewership who hasn't seen you before. Flub it up, and we've got our soundbite to make sure you don't win. He doesn't fit neatly into the Republican mold. His supporters aren't easily classified as Soccer Moms, Angry White Men, or Disenfranchised Minorities. Most unforgivably, he says crazy things like bring the troops home, abolish the IRS, and de-regulate just about everything. In short, he is a threat to the cozy status quo enjoyed by the ABCNNMSNBCBS media and their government leash holders. The rest of the debate was more of the same. The usual bias by position tactic was employed. Unlike the reverse pyramid style of newsprint, long-format TV viewing tends to accentuate content in a bathtub curve. Content at the start is absorbed by those who tune in, then (wisely) tune out, and content at the end is recalled by those with the stomach to watch the entire 2-hour politico-fest. In this case Mitt and Rudy got a softball Red Sox question to end the debate, just after Dr. Paul's last question of the night. Ready for the real clincher to the "marginalize Paul" theory above? Here's the transcript of the question (emphasis mine):

Mark : "Mark Strous, Davenport, Iowa. This question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, I think we both know that the Republican Party is never going to give you the nomination. But, I'm hoping that you're crazy like a fox like that, and you're using this exposure to propel yourself into an independent run. My question is for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul, are you going to let America down by not running as an independent?

Question 33 Mr. Paul, are you going to run as an independent?

The questioner probably meant well, and seems to be a Ron Paul supporter. The position of his question however, is intended to leave in the mind of the undecided Republican primary-goer, the audience watching the debate, that Ron Paul is unelectable. So, to summarize the bias by position tactic as used in the debates, Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist kook is the subtext of the 6th question, and Ron Paul is an unelectable maverick is the second to last question. Nice editorial bias, CNN. Thanks a lot.

December 3, 2007

John Keller [send him mail] writes from Atlanta, GA where he lives and works.

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page