Comments on: Are political reporters asking the right questions?

By: Robert Niles

Robert Niles — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:20:34 +0000

I explained this on http://www.www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/071210niles/ The point is to elicit a discussion.

By: John Mecklin

John Mecklin — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:14:22 +0000

I am wondering: What is the point of this silly exercise? Internet “polls” of the type you are running are invalid, in the scientific sense. The people participating do not constitute a random sample, so it doesn’t matter how the vote comes out; the result means nothing, as anyone with a Statistics 101 education will tell you.

I’m personally offended by this feature of your site. I realize it’s easy to put up, and it generates traffic.

But is generating traffic with meaningless disinformation really the point of OJR?

By: 82.161.107.9

82.161.107.9 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:39:58 +0000

I look at these political debates and other ‘news coverage’ from Europe and keep wonderering what has happened to journalism in the States over the last decades.
For insight into what really matters I have to rely on fake news shows like The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher.
What a strange world: news shows are now presented by clowns while comedians tell us the truth. Kind of like the Dark Ages (think clergy in stead of journalism).

By: 67.53.239.239

67.53.239.239 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:01:53 +0000

The questions went to electability, so they were appropriate — and were about concerns that have surfaced since the last debate. Frankly, the interviewers let a lot of followup questions go, as did Clinton, in not telling Obama he was — well — forgetful when Obama said that her former pastor supported his (not so; it was her former church but with a new pastor) and when Obama said that his handwriting was not on the questionnaire where he said he was for gun control (it is his handwriting) and when Obama said that he never said he would not wear a flag pin (he did and on tape) and when Obama said . . . it goes on and on, and I counted at least six, uh, “memory losses” by him. I would call them lies, but let us give him the possibility that he was just not ready for prime time.

Obama faced 20 minutes in one debate of the sort of questions that Clinton has faced repeatedly in most of the previous 20 debates — including the infamous questions asked about her of all eight men in the race in October, when they were asked to trash her, but she was not given rebuttal time.

Personally, I prefer that debates go back to public television and be run by the League of Women Voters again, rather than we-the-people being sold to advertisers so that networks get ratings for the terrible job that most have done with debates this year — and are continuing to do.

By: 75.35.174.247

75.35.174.247 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:54:33 +0000

Bad enough that ABC used a former Clinton public relations guy as one of two reporters. Even worse: The early questions were of little value. Does Obama really know how “patriotic” his pastor is, and who really cares? So now we have the implications of a conflict of interest with the selection of Clinton’s former PR guy, and the reality of a weak line of first questions. It makes an appearance look like a reality. Shame, shame ABC! We hoped you had better judgement.

By: Dena Langdon

Dena Langdon — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:43:24 +0000

One has to wonder whether Hillary Clinton was in on what the “journalists” asked at that “debate.” It took them an hour to get to question 16 about the number one issue facing the country. Earlier questions just weren’t news by then. What a waste of time and resources and what an insult to the intelligence of the electorate!