Moderator bias?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/politi...html?hpt=po_c1

***Moderator Candy Crowley, the CNN chief political correspondent, tried in vain at times to prevent each candidate from going over allotted time, with Obama speaking for more than three minutes longer than Romney on the night.***

Three debates.

Three complaints from Democrats on talk time.

Three times moderators allowed the Democratic ticket more time to talk then the Republicans.

Bias? You betcha.

Stop pretending any of the people hosting these debates is unbiased. Cut the microphone rigidly at the end of their 2 minutes. Allow the two debaters two times to make an extra rebuttal on topics they see fit. Make it so there isn't even a damn moderator. Cut the mics so no one can interrupt the other. There. Bias solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/16/politi...html?hpt=po_c1

***Moderator Candy Crowley, the CNN chief political correspondent, tried in vain at times to prevent each candidate from going over allotted time, with Obama speaking for more than three minutes longer than Romney on the night.***

Three debates.

Three complaints from Democrats on talk time.

Three times moderators allowed the Democratic ticket more time to talk then the Republicans.

Bias? You betcha.

Stop pretending any of the people hosting these debates is unbiased. Cut the microphone rigidly at the end of their 2 minutes. Allow the two debaters two times to make an extra rebuttal on topics they see fit. Make it so there isn't even a damn moderator. Cut the mics so no one can interrupt the other. There. Bias solved.

---

So, you know these guys between the two of them have a job of getting American voters to vote them into the office of President of the United States? It's bad enough already with the rules they have in place. Your proposal would put the final nail in the coffin of the presidential debates.

Hey Lewk what effect do you believe this moderator bias has on the election and why does it have that effect?

So from the title of the thread I can only guess that Romney lost. If Romney repeated his success of the first then Lewk would never have created a thread with this title.

I only saw the last bit, but in that bit Obama did a better job than he did in the last debate and Romney did not do as well as he should have. I was esp. surprised that Romney decided to waste a couple of minutes on whining about how China's cheating :bulb: not least because it seemed to miss the point of the question.

I guess the moderator was bias. If calling out a candidate for lying (to applause) is bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

I guess the moderator was bias. If calling out a candidate for lying (to applause) is bias.

---

OK as much as I mocked Lewk just three posts ago (having not seen the debate, still not and not going to) I have to say here that yes absolutely! Calling out anyone for so-called "lying" is biased, as is permitting applause for such a ludicrous action.

In politics what is truth and what is lies depends as much on your political persuasions and viewpoint as anything else. A debate is an opportunity for the two candidates to represent themselves to millions with a right of reply to their opponents, it is not the role of any one journalist to be sole and unilateral arbiter of "truth".

Romney should be able to say "the sky is pink all day because of Obama's gay agenda which has led every first born son in the last four years to be a fairy and every girl to turn into a leprechaun during a full moon" and the moderator should turn to Obama and say "your reply?" Afterwards journalists, "fact-checkers" and both parties spin teams etc can respond, but during the debate it should be about those two men only and if Obama wants to call Romney a liar he should - not the moderator.

We recently had a discussion about two different kinds of truths/lies/facts or whatever you want to call them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Stop pretending any of the people hosting these debates is unbiased. Cut the microphone rigidly at the end of their 2 minutes. Allow the two debaters two times to make an extra rebuttal on topics they see fit. Make it so there isn't even a damn moderator. Cut the mics so no one can interrupt the other. There. Bias solved.

---

Watched the MSNBC broadcast of this, so I don't know if the other channels had the same camera angles available, but one of the cameras next to the desk where Candy was seated had a large LCD screen on it counting down from 2:00 that changed colors when it got to :15 and :05. Both Romney and Obama consistently talked long after this display had reached :00 and actually powered off. Also in the context of an hour and a half, three minutes isn't very long. I'm also uncertain of how not having a moderator would work logically, since someone or something would have to moderate the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

We recently had a discussion about two different kinds of truths/lies/facts or whatever you want to call them.

---

Indeed. Although its one thing to have a "fact-checker" afterwards claiming what is truth or not to their own bias, to actually do so DURING the debate should not be tolerated. Obama should defend himself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

OK as much as I mocked Lewk just three posts ago (having not seen the debate, still not and not going to) I have to say here that yes absolutely! Calling out anyone for so-called "lying" is biased, as is permitting applause for such a ludicrous action.

In politics what is truth and what is lies depends as much on your political persuasions and viewpoint as anything else. A debate is an opportunity for the two candidates to represent themselves to millions with a right of reply to their opponents, it is not the role of any one journalist to be sole and unilateral arbiter of "truth".

Romney should be able to say "the sky is pink all day because of Obama's gay agenda which has led every first born son in the last four years to be a fairy and every girl to turn into a leprechaun during a full moon" and the moderator should turn to Obama and say "your reply?" Afterwards journalists, "fact-checkers" and both parties spin teams etc can respond, but during the debate it should be about those two men only and if Obama wants to call Romney a liar he should - not the moderator.

---

The moderator did not call Romney a liar. Romney stated something about Obama not calling the attacks in Bengazi terrorism, Obama said it wasn't true, and referred to 'the transcripts', Romney then repeated his claim about not calling it terrorism. It was only then that the moderator said 'he did'. It is not unlikely that by then her team had already pulled the said.

Other than you I think it is very good that politicians get confronted when they lie immediately after they have told one. If you let them get away with lies and wait untill the talking heads and fact checkers do their work the lie already has stuck in far too many people's mind as a possible truth.

If you google the moderator's name you will find that ahead of the debate BOTH campaigns were concerned about the moderator not sticking exactly to their set of negotiated rules. I think that's a good thing; politicians should be affraid of the press, not be able to treat them as their lapdogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK-NzSNYaJ0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Indeed. Although its one thing to have a "fact-checker" afterwards claiming what is truth or not to their own bias, to actually do so DURING the debate should not be tolerated. Obama should defend himself.

---

Why? If I could magic into existence a machine which was able to objectively rate the truth, in real time, of political statements made by candidates for office, and in some manner relay how what is stated departs from this objective truth, I would also magic the presence of its output into every broadcast, and speech made during the presidential race. I can understand secrecy, or even forgetfulness, but outright lying should not be tolerated, and should be made overtly apparent (in relation to running for major political office).

Except the moderator got it wrong-- Obama DIDN'T say it was a terrorist act in his statement, not directly. Regardless, Romney's point should have been not about what Obama said in his statement but the White House's slow response. He kind of got baited into it by Obama, though, who himself wasn't quite accurate when he said that he did say that it was a terrorist act (which, again, he might have meant but didn't say directly).

The moderator said he used the word "terror" in his speech in the Rose Garden... witch wasn't the point at all. Look back on this forum and see what we thought it was (based on what Obama and his admistration said) for two weeks after the assassination. Romney was absolutely right big picture, and got a minor detail wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

So from the title of the thread I can only guess that Romney lost. If Romney repeated his success of the first then Lewk would never have created a thread with this title.

---

I thought Ryan did better than Biden and I made an issue on the time there as well. No question Obama did better this debate then the first one - and with the moderator interference (and wtf applause from a so called neutral crowd) Romney was made to look bad on the ambassador assassination issue. But Romney held his own, other then that question he was as solid as the first debate.

Ask yourself this - why are the Democrats getting to speak more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The moderator did not call Romney a liar. Romney stated something about Obama not calling the attacks in Bengazi terrorism, Obama said it wasn't true, and referred to 'the transcripts', Romney then repeated his claim about not calling it terrorism. It was only then that the moderator said 'he did'. It is not unlikely that by then her team had already pulled the said.

Other than you I think it is very good that politicians get confronted when they lie immediately after they have told one. If you let them get away with lies and wait untill the talking heads and fact checkers do their work the lie already has stuck in far too many people's mind as a possible truth.

If you google the moderator's name you will find that ahead of the debate BOTH campaigns were concerned about the moderator not sticking exactly to their set of negotiated rules. I think that's a good thing; politicians should be affraid of the press, not be able to treat them as their lapdogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK-NzSNYaJ0

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The moderator said he used the word "terror" in his speech in the Rose Garden... witch wasn't the point at all. Look back on this forum and see what we thought it was (based on what Obama and his admistration said) for two weeks after the assassination. Romney was absolutely right big picture, and got a minor detail wrong.

---

I never thought about that attack as anything else than a terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The moderator did not call Romney a liar. Romney stated something about Obama not calling the attacks in Bengazi terrorism, Obama said it wasn't true, and referred to 'the transcripts', Romney then repeated his claim about not calling it terrorism. It was only then that the moderator said 'he did'. It is not unlikely that by then her team had already pulled the said.

Other than you I think it is very good that politicians get confronted when they lie immediately after they have told one. If you let them get away with lies and wait untill the talking heads and fact checkers do their work the lie already has stuck in far too many people's mind as a possible truth.

If you google the moderator's name you will find that ahead of the debate BOTH campaigns were concerned about the moderator not sticking exactly to their set of negotiated rules. I think that's a good thing; politicians should be affraid of the press, not be able to treat them as their lapdogs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK-NzSNYaJ0

---

The bias in the press in favor of the Democratic party in America is well known. Outside of talk radio and Fox News there is an overwhelming bias towards the left. These moderators (including one moderator whose wedding Obama attended... BOGGLE) have shown their take on the election. The press are lap dogs for the left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agamemnus

Except the moderator got it wrong-- Obama DIDN'T say it was a terrorist act in his statement, not directly.

---

True, he only said it at a junior high level and required his listeners to have an attention span of ca. 2 mins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I never thought about that attack as anything else than a terrorist attack.

---

Do you consider angry mobs terrorist attacks? I don't mean to quibble about word choice but there is a gigantic difference in connotation between folks mad about something rioting and killing and a targeted attack by Al Qaeda. It seems pretty obvious that the administration would have preferred this to be a spontaneous attack by angry Arabs about some stupid youtube video then a coordinated strike by a terrorist group against a under-defended embassy that had asked for beefed up security. One looks like a random act of violence the other makes the administration look weak and unprepared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Romney was absolutely right big picture, and got a minor detail wrong.

---

He got a minor detail stupidly wrong! It was so unnecessary!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Watched the MSNBC broadcast of this, so I don't know if the other channels had the same camera angles available, but one of the cameras next to the desk where Candy was seated had a large LCD screen on it counting down from 2:00 that changed colors when it got to :15 and :05. Both Romney and Obama consistently talked long after this display had reached :00 and actually powered off. Also in the context of an hour and a half, three minutes isn't very long. I'm also uncertain of how not having a moderator would work logically, since someone or something would have to moderate the debate.

---

Questions appear. Hell they can be read by a computer (but a person would do). One person talks. His mic is cut off at exactly 2 minutes. Next person talks. Cut off exactly 2 minutes. Each person has an equal chance to say what they want. Done. Fairness. No bias. Won't ever happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

He got a minor detail stupidly wrong! It was so unnecessary!

---

Exactly. Very frustrating. The issue in Libya could be an almost perfect example of Obama ineptness as Commander and Chief and he flubbed it. Worse he allowed the obviously biased moderator to hit him with it. All in all Romney did well but that one question hurts quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Worse he allowed the obviously biased moderator to hit him with it.

---

She handled it in as unbiased a manner as she could, without sullying her integrity, when Romney tried to rope her in. When it comes to this sort of thing I think anyone who has a penchant for checking facts for simple accuracy (see previous discussion) is likely to seem biased against the Romney campaign simply because the Romney campaign seems to be a little sloppy when it comes to finding out what people actually said/did. Talking about basic data here not complicated analysis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Do you consider angry mobs terrorist attacks? I don't mean to quibble about word choice but there is a gigantic difference in connotation between folks mad about something rioting and killing and a targeted attack by Al Qaeda. It seems pretty obvious that the administration would have preferred this to be a spontaneous attack by angry Arabs about some stupid youtube video then a coordinated strike by a terrorist group against a under-defended embassy that had asked for beefed up security. One looks like a random act of violence the other makes the administration look weak and unprepared.

---

This attack happened in Bengazi, Libya. Anybody who thought this was a random attack just because Obama only used the word terror towards the end of his speech has no clue about the situation in that city, that land, that part of the world. Just because terrorists used planes in their attacks on the US doesn't mean they no longer use other weapons.

FYI: I dislike Obama and would find it funny if he were to become a one term president. That however I don't see happening with the disappointing efforts by the GOP candidate to be a credible alternative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

She handled it in as unbiased a manner as she could, without sullying her integrity, when Romney tried to rope her in. When it comes to this sort of thing I think anyone who has a penchant for checking facts for simple accuracy (see previous discussion) is likely to seem biased against the Romney campaign simply because the Romney campaign seems to be a little sloppy when it comes to finding out what people actually said/did. Talking about basic data here not complicated analysis.

---

You watched the debate. Here were the moderators views prior to moderating:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journal...r-On-Day-After

CROWLEY: ... There's a back and forth now about why didn't this administration -- why did it take them until Friday after a September 11th attack in Libya to come to the conclusion that it was premeditated and that there was terrorists involved. John McCain said it doesn't pass the smell test, or it's willful ignorance to think that they didn't know before this what was going on. Your reaction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

This attack happened in Bengazi, Libya. Anybody who thought this was a random attack just because Obama only used the word terror towards the end of his speech has no clue about the situation in that city, that land, that part of the world. Just because terrorists used planes in their attacks on the US doesn't mean they no longer use other weapons.

FYI: I dislike Obama and would find it funny if he were to become a one term president. That however I don't see happening with the disappointing efforts by the GOP candidate to be a credible alternative.

---

After the administration's statements in the days following the attack did you think the youtube video was responsible for the attack?

After the administration's statements in the days following the attack did you think the embassy came under assault from an angry mob?

After the administration's statements in the days following the attack did you think this was a surgical terrorist strike to murder an ambassador?

Which statement rings true with what the Obama administration, his UN rep and the media went to town with?

Apparently Crowley claims to be a vegetarian... If that doesn't show you that she's a liar I don't know what will. ;)

Say wha

Watch the 11 minutes and you tell me what you make of this administration. Liars? Incredibly competent and can't get their story straight? Or do you actually think the handling of this was appropriate.

http://www.therightscoop.com/bret-ba...tion-response/

If you dislike the source look up the specific facts yourself - there is ample video on nearly everything stated.

I agree it isn't the moderators role to correct, though it wuold be interesting if we had on site fact checkers.