What will tonights debate bring?
>>>Below is the text of a Media Reality Check put together
by Tim Graham, the MRC's Director of Media Analysis, and
distributed by fax this afternoon.
For the Adobe Acrobat PDF version:
mediaresearch.org
Before getting to the full text, a quote featured in a box in
the middle of the faxed page:
Lehrer: How Much I Loved Watergate
"If it hadn't been for that [Watergate] burglary, and all the
subsequent trimmings, it is quite probable there would be no
public broadcasting anymore. It is an absolute certainty there
would be nothing called MacNeil/Lehrer. So for the record let me
say [in italic for emphasis]: Thank you, Nixon. Thank you, Messrs.
Liddy and Hunt, Dean and Colson, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. We could
not have done it without you. It's a lovely story of how good
triumphed over evil. More or less." -- PBS anchor Jim Lehrer in
his memoir A Bus of My Own.
Now, the text of the September 29 Media Reality Check:
Lehrer Favored Liberal Questions in 2000
Forget the Fuss About Debate Rules: Will Bush and Cheney Get a
Fair Shake from Four Liberal Anchors?
While the media elite fret about the debates being too bogged down
in rules and restrictions, the better question is whether George
Bush and Dick Cheney will get a fair shake from four liberal news
anchors.
First up is Jim Lehrer, who fits comfortably into the media elite,
even in the subsidized liberal enclave that is PBS. He shares all
the ideological assumptions. During the GOP convention, Lehrer
came out of a tribute to Ronald Reagan by reciting the liberal
take on Reaganomics: "He gets a lot of credit for the tax cuts,
but, of course, the tax cuts resulted in a huge deficit, and
people do not remember."
But Lehrer is rarely a target of public complaints by
conservatives, because of his anchorman style -- sticking to brief
questions and avoiding long, indulgent elaborations of his
opinions on the world. Critics joke he has the courage to be dull
and boring.
This would explain how he became the consensus choice of the
candidates in 2000 to moderate all three presidential debates.
(CNN's Bernard Shaw questioned the vice presidential nominees.) In
the first 2000 debate on October 3, Lehrer's questions generally
avoided betraying a point of view. (In fact, Lehrer was attacked
the next day from the left by Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales
for using the word "pro-life" to describe Bush's stand: "Reputable
journalistic organizations do not use this term," Shales huffed.)
But after Shaw peppered the vice presidential nominees with
liberal questions, Lehrer echoed that performance in the second
presidential debate on October 11. His questions were either
neutral or liberal. None of them challenged the candidates from an
explicitly conservative viewpoint.
Lehrer asked if the candidates would support a federal ban on
"racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of
government." He asked if they would support "a national hate
crimes law." He asked, "Do you believe in general terms that gays
and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans?"
He asked, "What about the more than 40 million younger Americans
who do not have health insurance right now? What would you do
about that?" And: "How do you see the connection between
controlling gun sales in this country and the incidence of death
by accidental or intentional use of guns?"
In the third, town hall-style debate on October 17, Lehrer chose
which of the more than 100 "uncommitted" voters would ask the
candidates questions. Out of 15 questions from the allegedly
undecided, eight leaned left. The only two questions that might be
designated as coming from the right were one about an over-
committed military, and one about parents struggling with
Hollywood entertainment.
Among the liberal questions Lehrer approved were: "Would you be
open to the ideal of a national health care plan for everybody?"
And: "How will your administration address diversity,
inclusiveness? And what role will affirmative action play in your
overall plan?"
Lehrer found no time to challenge the two candidates from a
conservative direction on the divisive effects of racial quotas or
the failures of gun control, for example. Can we hope for a more
balanced slate of debate questions in 2004? |
