Media bias

[joeb]

I'm really curious to see how many of you Democrats/socialists will condemn the CNBC moderators for their obvious bias.  Take a look at all the debates and see the difference in tone, questions, and attitudes displayed by the media towards the Democrat candidates and the Republican candidates.  How can any fair-minded person deny the bias?

I'll almost bet I get no answers to this, and furthermore I'll almost bet there will be no condemnation of the bias displayed by the media....  What I want to know is why the silence.  The job of the media is not to side with one party over the other.  It is their job to hold both sides with their feet to fire and to hold both side accountable for their actions, their character, their policies, their lack of judgment.  The media is very one-sided in this and if this keeps up this country will no longer enjoy liberty.  This is why the press is called the "fouth estate".  It is not supposed to act as the super pac for either party.

[CoAspen]

Its Bias when the mod try to get answers from the candidates?

Its Bias because the candidates didn't want to give straight answers?

Its Bias because the candidates wanted to shift the focus from their none answers?

What I saw was a lot of whining and complaining in the very few brief moments I could catch during commercial breaks from other programs I was watching....every single time!! Deflect...deflect...blame is the name of the game.

By the way I did not watch the other party 'debates' because I'm sure they had complaints also. The media is always a convenient 'whipping horse' for politicians when pressed for answers instead of deflection. Whining children!!

 

By the way, Carly Fiona gave better answers than the others with out going in search of a bush to circle around.

[Tom Wetmore]

Blame it on the media.  Convenient tool of the inept or just those that don't like the truth to be told.  Media bias is most often the handle of that tool.  The complaint is never that the media is biased in my favor.  And certainly never biased against those with whom I disagree!  Strange how that works, isn't it!

 

[CoAspen]

When it comes to the complaint that they were not given enough time to speak or others got longer amounts, they should look at them selves and the other canidates. It is nearly always the case that the speakers want to keep talking because of their own efforts to 'spin' the question to their liking and just rattle on there by living less time for others to speak on the issue. They are all their own worst enemies!!

They obviously want 'soft serve' questions and a bowing attitude. Trump has gone so far as to say that the next moderators should be certified Republican voters. To me the best approach would be to have each party moderated by the opposite. To sing platitudes back and forth is not a debate or informative. There needs to be a format based on getting real answers to question, whether like it or not, and to be held accountable when they don't answer. What we have going on with 'debates' is rather useless with out substantive data...just a 'beauty' contest.

[Tom Wetmore]

I read through a significant portion of the transcript because I had not watched it.  Easier to form an objective view of how it all went.  Few actually answered the actual question asked.  A lot of grandstanding and interrupting by the candidates.  Not a lot of substance in the answers.  The questions were predominantly on the issues and efforts to flesh out some of the vague positions and pontifications of each candidate.  They obviously are not prepared for much beyond offering the usual sound bite answers.  The fault was not with the questions.  It was with the answers.  And realistically, having 10 candidates debating all at once is foolish.  Nobody has time to give an in-depth answer.  And the moderators have little time to cover much or ask followup questions.  

Not the fault of the media, really.  

[Bravus]

That well-known leftie bastion CNBC... oh wait.

[joeb]

Yeah, I've seen so many Democrats asked if they were running clown campaigns.  No bias there....  The sneering attitudes were very plain to see, and hear.   Even Joe Trippi, a Democratic political consultant, said this was nothing but biased.  He said it was blatant and shameful. 

When has Hillary been asked about Benghazi?  When has she been asked about the Clinton Foundation?  How about her email scandal? None of these subjects came up in the Democratic debate.  She lies constantly and nobody in the press holds her accountable.  When has any question been asked of a Democratic candidate that starts out asking why they don't resign?  When has the press asked her about telling Libya, Egypt, and her daughter the exact opposite that she told the US public about the attack on Benghazi?  You know as well as I do that she won't get asked questions like that by any of liberal media.  They are invested in seeing her elected. 

You guys don't even begin to surprise me with your bias.  It's exactly what I expect from you.   That you can't, or won't, even acknowledge bias says a lot about you.  It says you have zero respect for those who disagree with you.  It doesn't say anything good about your integrity either. 

[Tom Wetmore]

And what is your bias?

Seriously, you ask when was Hilary asked about Benghazi? Perhaps you missed the 11 hour marathon session of political theater where she had more than a handful of questions and had more than a few minutes to respond?  OK it wasn't in a debate.  It was a real life situation with far more at stake than winning or losing a charade of our political process that is passed off as a "debate".  

Edited November 3, 2015 by Tom Wetmore
typo correction

[CoAspen]

...makes me wonder what was being read! Twas merely pointing out the 'silly factor' of debates and even complimented the female candidate.  That was bias? Didn't even mention the Democrat debate because, as stated all ready, they are waste of my time. The only reason I watched a teeny weeny 'parts of pieces' of the Republican was to see how B Carson was doing.

Me thinks the individual attacking us as 'biased' and having a lack of 'integrity' might ought to look in a mirror!

Someone needs to chill out and not take debates so serious.

(ps: they don't give real answers)

[Tom Wetmore]

13 hours ago, CoAspen said:

...(ps: they don't give real answers)

And that was in large part the reason behind all the whining and complain of the candidates , or more correctly, their handlers.  They really don't want to debate real issues or give real    ( i.e., substantive)  answers.  They want another platform opportunity to stand in fronton cameras to give their stump speeches.  In short all they are looking for is media attention.  The stage thing called a debate was just an attempt to get the spotlight for enough time to get media coverage over the next news cycle.  They really don't want to have serious questions asked do f them.

Most of the time they didn't even answer the question asked of them.  They just gave an answer to the question they wished had been asked.  The complaining started when there was a moderator attempt to actually press for an answer to the actual question.  The one they really did not want to have to answer.  

[phkrause]

Actually to me they should allow the audience to ask the questions, not prepared questions either, which is probably already agreed upon by the candidates, who than made a ruckus for show.