VP debate - potential for bias?

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Richard

BMT merely posts items to "raise an issue" - adding the sardonic bit of opinion to a posted item is not "merely raising an issue" as you are fixed on trying to convince everyone here.

The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by tonyz

I raised an issue. A reasonable response might have been:

1). The relationship did not exist; or

2). The relationship did exist - but was so distant and trivial as to be a non-issue.That is what I said in my initial post

Or, perhaps, you could have responded that such a disclosure of a prior relationship might unfairly prejudice the jury of public opinion.why would I say that? I didn't believe it and it didn't turn out to be true. My "benefit of the doubt" was not in vain. If (BIG IF) your issue had occurred then it could/should have been raised with a vengeance. do not flatter yourself that bringing it to the fore prevented it from happening. I've been of a few missions that never should have worked but . . . they did!

But, these discussions of bridges, warts, trolls, guns, idiots and children appear to speak more of the commentators than to the issue itself. Yeah, we're astute observers of the human condition lol

Have you never inquired about prior relationships or activities when considering someone for a position or a clearance - even if to ultimate dismiss the issue as to be no longer relevant ? to myself, but never on a public forum such as this. unless, asking your height, facial features and living arrangement counts. dang, then, once.

All I can say is wow, just wow.

It's not my fault you don't get it.
Buh-bye

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Razor

The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.

I think most of us agree with the fact that the poster was well within protocol, and his rights as an individual, to post the comment(s) he did, sardonic or not. What some of us would like is for him to step up and:

a) admit he was wrong, or partially wrong, in his characterization of the moderator,

or

b) provide specific examples - such as the number of times each candidate was interrupted - to back up his claims.

Stating that it's "water under the bridge" or that "I've moved on" sounds more like what the Ds do when things don't go their way.

As for me, I'll paraphrase Adlai Stevenson at the UN in October, 1961:

"Don't wait for the translation. Answer 'yes' or 'no'. I'm prepared to wait until hell freezes over."

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

My Journalism Major from the school "those kids at Columbia couldn't get in to" will whup up on you if she reads this

I would prefer that she whup up on her peers and begin a reconstitution of what was once a fine and honorable profession.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Razor

The admins here in the past have directed that merely posting a link or article without any commentary by the poster should be avoided as much as possible. Thus, whether we agree with the opinion or not, the poster is indeed following PS.com protocol here.

Yep - but commentary does not necessarily mean opinion and nobody in this thread claimed anybody has not followed protocol.

Richard

[mark46th]

Candy Crowley and the women only get the "Town Hall and Veep debates" whining crowd has been driving me up a wall. It's a Presidential Debate" not a "look at me" moment, you self-serving twits......

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by mark46th

Candy Crowley and the women only get the "Town Hall and Veep debates" whining crowd has been driving me up a wall. It's a Presidential Debate" not a "look at me" moment, you self-serving twits......

I wish both men would answer the questions as asked.

[mark46th]

Sig- They are politicians.

[tonyz]

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

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by tonyz

FWIW, I recognize that this may not satisfy everyone. . . .

MOO, it is not merely enough that moderators be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.

YMMV

look who's back.
Who left the door open? Damn kids!

[ZonieDiver]

it is not merely enough that moderators be impartial; the public must perceive them to be so.

I think the vast majority of the American public perceived her to be so. I did. I had watched many of her news reports, and never found her to be apparently 'biased' in her reporting.

I don't think ANYone can be devoid of personal biases. All I ask is that they NOT let it interfere with their decision-making processses, whether they are members of the MSM or people who post in this forum.