Thanks for this observation. It is very important.
It is also important to assert the fact that tangible information and the awareness ['factual'] that can be carefully reasoned from tangible experience are useful to everyone. Common experience, which can be had from gradual growing of shared awareness of common factual circumstances, does motivate communities to become proactive together, to set aside differences in order to carry forward together a common interest project.
Gov Walz can effectively mobilize this sort of common awareness of many national interests and across many groups. Even MAGA members would, individually, begin to re-associate to American political democracy if each saw as sincere the Walz presentation and saw his sincere concern for American democratic society if the dialogue is degraded by disinformation and by refusal to listen as well as to present.
The position that CBS chooses to take here is insupportable if CBS wants to make the live coverage a source of factual views and an effective tool for listeners to use to factually assess of candidate capacity to understand, to explain, and to show personal integrity and personal commitment to fact and law.
It is useful to carefully consider the consequences of choices, made by both American individuals and by American media, to debase public debate and discussion by, over many many years and in all matters, repeated using or allowing the use of selective, distorting, biased and speculative factually unfounded news and views.
CBS shares responsibility for these consequences. If it now acts as if it is without recourse to publicly trusted sources of fact-checking, then it is admitting to creating a public perception of bad-faith public expression and biased media reporting and of being capable of so doing without these being documented and of being continued with only weak or with not any means of trusted accountability.
It will be of much value to Americans and to the active pursuit of American constitutional democracy if Gov Walz only offers relevant and timely factual assertions and factual rejoinders. Forget politics. Forget embarrassing innuendo and aspersion. Gov Walz could be remembered for his confident use of facts and facts alone. Facts only for rebuilding America and for rebuilding American confidence and social cooperation.
Thanks for this observation. It is very important.
It is also important to assert the fact that tangible information and the awareness ['factual'] that can be carefully reasoned from tangible experience are useful to everyone. Common experience, which can be had from gradual growing of shared awareness of common factual circumstances, does motivate communities to become proactive together, to set aside differences in order to carry forward together a common interest project.
Gov Walz can effectively mobilize this sort of common awareness of many national interests and across many groups. Even MAGA members would, individually, begin to re-associate to American political democracy if each saw as sincere the Walz presentation and saw his sincere concern for American democratic society if the dialogue is degraded by disinformation and by refusal to listen as well as to present.
Clearly #CBS takes its jobs to support/protect DJT and JDVance very seriously 🤦🏻♀️ It’s was made clear in 2016 election. Haven’t watched that GOP owned and operated org since 2016 and not about to start now.
Haven’t watched Bash and Tapper since that election either.
Qasim, you're generous enough to allow a discussion here. So I want to have one with you.
I disagree. Moderators have to hold discussants/candidates to the rules, but they don't have to do the work of the candidates. (That's my opinion.) I very clearly remember when one moderator pointed out when Trump was wrong/lying, and I regret that it happened that way. If the moderator or the network knew in advance that Trump would make this allegation (the one about Haitian immigrants' eating their neighbors' pets), then Harris knew it, or should have known it, too.
You went to law school. You're a lawyer. Who corrects the other side when you're involved in a disagreement, let's say in moot court? As a frame of reference, I was on the debate team when I was in high school (before your time). The deal was that the topic was announced in advance, but neither team knew until just before the debate which argument -- pro or con -- it would be called upon to make. You had to know everything you could about both sides of the question. The job of the "moderator" was to keep time.
My underlying concern about your position is that you think Vance is a better debater than is Walz. Maybe. Maybe not. But whoever gets elected is on his own as a VP, and no one is going impose a definitive correction. This debate is how it starts. (Having heard at least snippets of each, I'm frankly not worried about Walz.)
Well, I think we saw that Vance is the better debater; he is slick.... in a non fact checked debate, he wins. He lied consistently and very smoothly, while not answering questions. Walz was just not ready for it. Who worked with him in debate prep???
Ms Breakey, I agree that Vance is slick, and he's slick in that way that automatically makes you assume he's lying. He's not a gross caricature like Donnie, but he inspired no confidence. On the other side, there was Walz, who was purely genuine and authentic. Even on those occasions when Vance said he agreed in some way with Walz, or claimed to be sympathetic because Walz's son had witnessed a shooting, you had the feeling it was empty lip service.
A few years ago, I was out with a couple where the wife had a heavy Cuban accent, and the husband had a heavy NYC accent. I asked the wife if she was aware of her husband's accent. She wasn't. I don't know where Vance's wife was born, or what was her first language, or if she has an accent. But I did wonder how she could have overlooked the slick shyster that Vance is, unless she's one, too.
In my opinion, Vance lost the debate in two places. One was where Walz reminded Vance that he was occupying Pence's place. What he didn't have to say was that the reason was that Pence is honest and has some respect for American government, which Vance isn't and doesn't. The screaming defeat came at the end, where Walz asked Vance to say who won the '20 election, and Vance couldn't bring himself to do it. And I'm not counting the moderators' question to Vance about the stark 180 degree about face regarding Trump, to which Vance responded by saying he didn't really know Trump then, but now sees what a wonderful president he was.
Facts have to matter. And media's role is to be the 4th estate for a reason. If they abscond in that responsibility, then as someone mentioned elsewhere, they cease to become debate moderators and start to become talk show hosts.
The role of 4th estate is critical, and US mainstream media abdicated this responsibility quite a while ago. Dating myself, but remember Edward R. Morrows parting comments on leaving his job.
I was just listening to NPR. Walz reportedly told Harris when she approached him that he's not a good debater. If Harris and Walz win, and something happens to Harris, is that what we're stuck with: I told her I wasn't good at this? We're talking about the person who is commonly considered the most powerful person in the world. They can't rely on CNN to do the work for them, or complain that they already said they weren't good at this. And we can't demand that kind of back-up, either.
Qasim, let me put this another way. Imagine the staggering and blinding power of Harris' having said that she or her staff called the manager, or someone else, in Springfield, and found out that no such complaint was registered by anyone. What we got instead was a cute version of Harris, and CNN having to do the heavy lifting for her. Assuming anyone actually believed Donnie, or JD, which I doubt anyone did, let CNN report this in their discussion. The fact is that it is an increasingly common complaint that the MSM do NOT confront Donnie as they should. That's the indictment against them, not the possibility that they did not call Springfield officials, which Harris should have done.
As a separate, but not entirely unrelated, matter, I get e-mails all day, every day, as we all do, letting us know how tight this race is, and why we should donate. The media like horse races, because they sell more papers, and the parties like to stimulate people into donating money. None of them are reliable. It is unimaginable to me that Donnie and JD get out of this without deep shame, egg on their faces, and a huge L. I think we're all being jerked around.
Harris should have made the call herself (or her staff should have), and she should have reported it herself. And if she's that easy for Donnie to dominate, then why do we want her? Netanyahu/AIPAC dominates her, Wall St dominates her, and someone needs to ask how much we gain by having her instead of Donnie. Of course Donnie's terrible. But we need someone who offers us more than a pretty face and a pleasant disposition.
I'll be with you in spirit tonight, and I'll be looking for the same substance.
Of course facts matter. But is the choice that the broadcast media are talk show hosts or mediators? When Putin or Netanyahu lies to the POTUS, who's going to bail out the POTUS, or do the POTUS' job? I want to be reassured in the confidence that they can do their own job.
The last debate, and probably the last before that, lasted 90 minutes. Whoever cuts into those 90 minutes to point out that Donnie lied, or JD lied, deprives the whole enterprise of time. Whatever opportunity you're afraid will be lost will be lost anyway.
I know Haitian immigrants aren't prowling around, capturing, killing, and eating their neighbors' pets. I didn't need the CNN moderators to tell me that. I would much rather have seen how Harris would have handled it, apart from the appropriate way she looked away and gave it a disgusted laugh-off.
And Vance is making such a persistent fool of himself, I want to see how Walz handles it.
Also, you saw with Harris and Donnie that when Harris provokes him, Donnie doesn't respond to the question the moderator asked him. He wants to litigate Harris' insult. I'd much rather see the moderators insist that the candidate answer the new question, than get paralyzed by his insistence that he endlessly dredge up the old one. I have no reason to expect anything different with Walz and JD.
CBS Canadian Bull Sh*t? Corrupt Bull Sh*t? Corporate Bull Sh*t. Framing the election to favor Trump. Ah well Harris will still call out his obvious lies and meandering senior moments. Expect extreme bullying from him.
It would be interesting to learn how/why CBS made the no fact checking decision.
1)My guess would be money - the costs to hire people to do the checking.
2) cringing over the likelihood that Vance would lose
3) the conviction that what Cathy Radcliffe says is true - watchers will not be swayed by fact checking so doing so would be a waste of money (sigh) so much for truth.
This is why I subscribe to you. It’s also why I support an independent news source. Again, in a generalized way, only the people who want to be informed will find a way to be informed. Perhaps that is why they either read or subscribe to you.
It almost doesn't matter. Some of us won't believe a thing that Vance says and the rest will believe him no matter what anyone other than FOX News would say.
Thanks for this observation. It is very important.
It is also important to assert the fact that tangible information and the awareness ['factual'] that can be carefully reasoned from tangible experience are useful to everyone. Common experience, which can be had from gradual growing of shared awareness of common factual circumstances, does motivate communities to become proactive together, to set aside differences in order to carry forward together a common interest project.
Gov Walz can effectively mobilize this sort of common awareness of many national interests and across many groups. Even MAGA members would, individually, begin to re-associate to American political democracy if each saw as sincere the Walz presentation and saw his sincere concern for American democratic society if the dialogue is degraded by disinformation and by refusal to listen as well as to present.
Too bad
Why?
To be fair, with Norah O’Donnell, fact-checking would be worthless. She is the worst news anchor CBS has had in their entire history.
Then why have her moderate at all? Bring on someone who will fact check.
Thank you, Qasim.
The position that CBS chooses to take here is insupportable if CBS wants to make the live coverage a source of factual views and an effective tool for listeners to use to factually assess of candidate capacity to understand, to explain, and to show personal integrity and personal commitment to fact and law.
It is useful to carefully consider the consequences of choices, made by both American individuals and by American media, to debase public debate and discussion by, over many many years and in all matters, repeated using or allowing the use of selective, distorting, biased and speculative factually unfounded news and views.
CBS shares responsibility for these consequences. If it now acts as if it is without recourse to publicly trusted sources of fact-checking, then it is admitting to creating a public perception of bad-faith public expression and biased media reporting and of being capable of so doing without these being documented and of being continued with only weak or with not any means of trusted accountability.
It will be of much value to Americans and to the active pursuit of American constitutional democracy if Gov Walz only offers relevant and timely factual assertions and factual rejoinders. Forget politics. Forget embarrassing innuendo and aspersion. Gov Walz could be remembered for his confident use of facts and facts alone. Facts only for rebuilding America and for rebuilding American confidence and social cooperation.
Agreed. This helps no one except MAGAs who thrive on disinformation.
Thanks for this observation. It is very important.
It is also important to assert the fact that tangible information and the awareness ['factual'] that can be carefully reasoned from tangible experience are useful to everyone. Common experience, which can be had from gradual growing of shared awareness of common factual circumstances, does motivate communities to become proactive together, to set aside differences in order to carry forward together a common interest project.
Gov Walz can effectively mobilize this sort of common awareness of many national interests and across many groups. Even MAGA members would, individually, begin to re-associate to American political democracy if each saw as sincere the Walz presentation and saw his sincere concern for American democratic society if the dialogue is degraded by disinformation and by refusal to listen as well as to present.
I am really looking forward to this!
Clearly #CBS takes its jobs to support/protect DJT and JDVance very seriously 🤦🏻♀️ It’s was made clear in 2016 election. Haven’t watched that GOP owned and operated org since 2016 and not about to start now.
Haven’t watched Bash and Tapper since that election either.
Bash and Tapper have continued to since demonstrate their inability to care about facts or truth while reporting.
Qasim, you're generous enough to allow a discussion here. So I want to have one with you.
I disagree. Moderators have to hold discussants/candidates to the rules, but they don't have to do the work of the candidates. (That's my opinion.) I very clearly remember when one moderator pointed out when Trump was wrong/lying, and I regret that it happened that way. If the moderator or the network knew in advance that Trump would make this allegation (the one about Haitian immigrants' eating their neighbors' pets), then Harris knew it, or should have known it, too.
You went to law school. You're a lawyer. Who corrects the other side when you're involved in a disagreement, let's say in moot court? As a frame of reference, I was on the debate team when I was in high school (before your time). The deal was that the topic was announced in advance, but neither team knew until just before the debate which argument -- pro or con -- it would be called upon to make. You had to know everything you could about both sides of the question. The job of the "moderator" was to keep time.
My underlying concern about your position is that you think Vance is a better debater than is Walz. Maybe. Maybe not. But whoever gets elected is on his own as a VP, and no one is going impose a definitive correction. This debate is how it starts. (Having heard at least snippets of each, I'm frankly not worried about Walz.)
Well, I think we saw that Vance is the better debater; he is slick.... in a non fact checked debate, he wins. He lied consistently and very smoothly, while not answering questions. Walz was just not ready for it. Who worked with him in debate prep???
Ms Breakey, I agree that Vance is slick, and he's slick in that way that automatically makes you assume he's lying. He's not a gross caricature like Donnie, but he inspired no confidence. On the other side, there was Walz, who was purely genuine and authentic. Even on those occasions when Vance said he agreed in some way with Walz, or claimed to be sympathetic because Walz's son had witnessed a shooting, you had the feeling it was empty lip service.
A few years ago, I was out with a couple where the wife had a heavy Cuban accent, and the husband had a heavy NYC accent. I asked the wife if she was aware of her husband's accent. She wasn't. I don't know where Vance's wife was born, or what was her first language, or if she has an accent. But I did wonder how she could have overlooked the slick shyster that Vance is, unless she's one, too.
In my opinion, Vance lost the debate in two places. One was where Walz reminded Vance that he was occupying Pence's place. What he didn't have to say was that the reason was that Pence is honest and has some respect for American government, which Vance isn't and doesn't. The screaming defeat came at the end, where Walz asked Vance to say who won the '20 election, and Vance couldn't bring himself to do it. And I'm not counting the moderators' question to Vance about the stark 180 degree about face regarding Trump, to which Vance responded by saying he didn't really know Trump then, but now sees what a wonderful president he was.
Facts have to matter. And media's role is to be the 4th estate for a reason. If they abscond in that responsibility, then as someone mentioned elsewhere, they cease to become debate moderators and start to become talk show hosts.
The role of 4th estate is critical, and US mainstream media abdicated this responsibility quite a while ago. Dating myself, but remember Edward R. Morrows parting comments on leaving his job.
I was just listening to NPR. Walz reportedly told Harris when she approached him that he's not a good debater. If Harris and Walz win, and something happens to Harris, is that what we're stuck with: I told her I wasn't good at this? We're talking about the person who is commonly considered the most powerful person in the world. They can't rely on CNN to do the work for them, or complain that they already said they weren't good at this. And we can't demand that kind of back-up, either.
Interesting that Walz told her that. I really like Walz; but the person we needed on that stage tonight was Josh Shapiro.
Qasim, let me put this another way. Imagine the staggering and blinding power of Harris' having said that she or her staff called the manager, or someone else, in Springfield, and found out that no such complaint was registered by anyone. What we got instead was a cute version of Harris, and CNN having to do the heavy lifting for her. Assuming anyone actually believed Donnie, or JD, which I doubt anyone did, let CNN report this in their discussion. The fact is that it is an increasingly common complaint that the MSM do NOT confront Donnie as they should. That's the indictment against them, not the possibility that they did not call Springfield officials, which Harris should have done.
As a separate, but not entirely unrelated, matter, I get e-mails all day, every day, as we all do, letting us know how tight this race is, and why we should donate. The media like horse races, because they sell more papers, and the parties like to stimulate people into donating money. None of them are reliable. It is unimaginable to me that Donnie and JD get out of this without deep shame, egg on their faces, and a huge L. I think we're all being jerked around.
Harris should have made the call herself (or her staff should have), and she should have reported it herself. And if she's that easy for Donnie to dominate, then why do we want her? Netanyahu/AIPAC dominates her, Wall St dominates her, and someone needs to ask how much we gain by having her instead of Donnie. Of course Donnie's terrible. But we need someone who offers us more than a pretty face and a pleasant disposition.
I'll be with you in spirit tonight, and I'll be looking for the same substance.
What??? How much we gain by having her as Donnie??? Harris is perfectly capable of doing the job.
Of course facts matter. But is the choice that the broadcast media are talk show hosts or mediators? When Putin or Netanyahu lies to the POTUS, who's going to bail out the POTUS, or do the POTUS' job? I want to be reassured in the confidence that they can do their own job.
my concern is that with 2 minutes to respond to the question, refuting any lies leaves not much time to make one’s answer.
The last debate, and probably the last before that, lasted 90 minutes. Whoever cuts into those 90 minutes to point out that Donnie lied, or JD lied, deprives the whole enterprise of time. Whatever opportunity you're afraid will be lost will be lost anyway.
I know Haitian immigrants aren't prowling around, capturing, killing, and eating their neighbors' pets. I didn't need the CNN moderators to tell me that. I would much rather have seen how Harris would have handled it, apart from the appropriate way she looked away and gave it a disgusted laugh-off.
And Vance is making such a persistent fool of himself, I want to see how Walz handles it.
Also, you saw with Harris and Donnie that when Harris provokes him, Donnie doesn't respond to the question the moderator asked him. He wants to litigate Harris' insult. I'd much rather see the moderators insist that the candidate answer the new question, than get paralyzed by his insistence that he endlessly dredge up the old one. I have no reason to expect anything different with Walz and JD.
The lack of balls in journalism is frightening 🤦🏾♂️🤦🏾♂️
Okay. No fact checks for Vance. Somehow I thought Trump picked up the gauntlet to get his butt kicked again.
CBS Canadian Bull Sh*t? Corrupt Bull Sh*t? Corporate Bull Sh*t. Framing the election to favor Trump. Ah well Harris will still call out his obvious lies and meandering senior moments. Expect extreme bullying from him.
It's not the Canadians' fault.
It would be interesting to learn how/why CBS made the no fact checking decision.
1)My guess would be money - the costs to hire people to do the checking.
2) cringing over the likelihood that Vance would lose
3) the conviction that what Cathy Radcliffe says is true - watchers will not be swayed by fact checking so doing so would be a waste of money (sigh) so much for truth.
Shame on ALL print & public media for their blatant negligence!
This is why I subscribe to you. It’s also why I support an independent news source. Again, in a generalized way, only the people who want to be informed will find a way to be informed. Perhaps that is why they either read or subscribe to you.
Thank you Linda. Grateful for your support. ❤️✊🏽.
It almost doesn't matter. Some of us won't believe a thing that Vance says and the rest will believe him no matter what anyone other than FOX News would say.
All the more reason not to care how the media handle this, but to see how the candidates handle it.
Yep it just reinforces false narratives with no hope of changing anyone’s mind based on facts
The pathetic corporate media strikes again! I guess they really don’t want to do their damn jobs! What good are they?
Complete failure