Thursday, September 08,
2016
'Commander-in-Chief'
Forum Panned as Colossal Failure of Journalism
NBC hosted a presidential spectacle aboard a retired aircraft
carrier on Wednesday night. It did not go well.
Putting aside the shortcomings of both major candidates, for
many critical observers the biggest loser during Wednesday night's presidential
"Commander-in-Chief" forum on NBC News was the
platform itself.
Moderated by NBC's host of The Today Show Matt
Lauer, the town hall-style event was staged inside the belly of the U.S.S.
Intrepid, a retired World War II aircraft carrier that now serves as a military
museum in New York City, and was promoted by the news outlet as a chance to
extract specific positions from both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on
veterans affairs and foreign policy.
But instead of informing viewers on these key subject matters or
holding the candidates to account for past actions or statements, a widespread
reaction among progressive viewers and critical journalists from across the
political spectrum was that Lauer failed to ask the necessary tough questions
or followups, with many suggesting the forum was a lesson in how not to
inform voters or put a check on those seeking high office.
According to
Michael Calderone, senior media reporter for the Huffington Post,
the forum "should have gone down as the first time the two 2016
presidential candidate shared a stage," but instead "will be
remembered largely for the shortcomings of the man who was tasked with
moderating."
Writing for The
Intercept, staff journalists Zaid Jilani and Alex Emmons described the NBC
production and Lauer's performance as a "master class on how not to hold
candidates accountable" before a national audience.
"From the questions chosen to the format," Jilani and
Emmons said that despite some good questions from veterans in the audience the
event—which ran only one hour during prime time—was a total failure:
In the 25
minutes devoted to Clinton, nearly half was spent by Lauer grilling her
about her use of a private e-mail server while Secretary of State (one veteran
also asked about the issue). That left little room for questions
on policies she presided over while in office.
Lauer
repeatedly failed to fact-check candidates on their responses to questions.
When Hillary Clinton explained her anti-ISIS plan by saying “we are not going
to have ground troops in Iraq,” he failed to point out that we already do
have those troops. When Donald Trump claimed to have opposed the
wars in Iraq and Libya from the beginning, Lauer failed to correct him and
tell the audience that wasn’t true.
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign
Committee, called the forum "an absolute disgrace" and just more
proof that the entire presidential debate system needs an overhaul. "Matt
Lauer treated this forum less as a chance to educate voters about the real
differences in temperament and policy between the candidates and more as a
chance to do clickbait trolling," Green said. "Instead of asking
about big ideas, he asked small-bore questions that voters aren't asking at
their dinner tables."
Columnist Jonathan Chait, meanwhile, dubbed Lauer's
interview approach as "pathetic" and lamented the impact such
performances have on the voting public and, ultimately, the election.
"I had not taken seriously the possibility that Donald
Trump could win the presidency until I saw Matt Lauer host an hour-long
interview with the two major party candidates," wrote Chait following the
event.
"Lauer’s performance was not merely a failure, it was horrifying
and shocking. The shock, for me, was the realization that most Americans
inhabit a very different news environment than professional journalists. I not
only consume a lot of news, since it’s my job, I also tend to focus on elite
print news sources. Most voters, and all the more so undecided voters, subsist
on a news diet supplied by the likes of Matt Lauer. And the reality transmitted
to them from Lauer matches the reality of the polls, which is a world in which
Clinton and Trump are equivalently flawed."
Offering at least some buffer to the individual criticism, HuffPo's
Calderone acknowledged that part of Lauer's failures on Wednesday night
"were not of his own making," but could be attributed to the format
of the event. "With only a half-hour with each candidate, he was pressed
for time and forced to rush through topics while bringing in audience questions
and timely follow-ups," Calderone wrote.
For many on social media, however, Lauer would not be let off
the hook so easily:
when the
nbc executives decided @MLauer would
moderate this forum, did anyone stand up and say that’s a really bad idea?
— mike
casca (@cascamike) September 8,
2016
matt
lauer is who we thought he was.
— mike
casca (@cascamike) September 8,
2016
Nice
thing about Lauer botching this debate so badly is we have a poster child for
"Failed Journalism 2016."
—
emptywheel (@emptywheel) September 8,
2016
Is it
possible that after the #CommanderInChiefForum we
know less about where Trump and Clinton stand than we did before?
— John
Nichols (@NicholsUprising) September 8,
2016
Wow. That
was scary. #NBCNewsForum
— ruth
conniff (@rconniff) September 8,
2016
Though Wednesday night's event was a one-on-one format, the
first presidential debate with both candidates on stage together facing
questions, is s
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 License
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment