Quote:
Originally Posted by ZonieDiver
ZD -- entire post --
|
FWIW, I recognize that this may not satisfy everyone.
IMO, there was no obvious evidence of bias by the ABC News moderator in the VP debate, at issue. And, my personal commentary accompanying my OP may reasonably be interpreted to mock most in the MSM. Screw them.
As a guest on this board, my apologies to QPs who took offense. My sardonic humor was clearly directed toward a MSM that I hold in low regard. A close reading of the entire post suggests a more benign attitude toward Raddatz, herself. My apologies to her family or fans who are QPs on this board, or otherwise. Raddatz is a national figure, a prominent member of ABC News and she was arguably a major participant in an important national event. Thus, IMO, her background and certainly her past personal interactions with an incumbent president, were, as they say...newsworthy. Especially, on a public forum.
Moreover, no serious commentator can deny the existence (or, at the very least, the
perception...by many) of bias by the MSM during Obama's first election run, first term, and subsequent re-election run.
MOO, I stand by my firm belief that moderators of the VP or P debates should be, to the best of our ability to really know, unclouded by personal bias or conflicts of interest. Disclosure of information that may suggest potential for bias should be considered newsworthy. I submit that folks should have the facts in hand and make their own decisions as to relevance or materiality. I recognize that opinions on this matter may differ.
Finally, in our democratic republic in which the legitimacy of our government is dependent on the consent and approval of the governed, public confidence in our MSM, and members of our press -- that moderate such important debates -- is imperative.
MOO, it is not merely enough that moderators
be impartial; the public must
perceive them to be so.
YMMV