MSNBC's Bizarre Debate Coverage

by  D. Cupples | I watched the Democratic debate last night on MSNBC but turned off the TV five minutes into Keith Olbermann's and Chris Matthews' post-debate chat (though I've often enjoyed watching Olbermann).

The post-debate commentary was downright bizarre. Olbermann and Matthews were talking like boozed-up spectators who'd just left Thunderdome.  I was surprised, because that's not how I think of Olbermann (admittedly, I'm not familiar with Matthews).  For a moment, I wondered if I'd watched the same debate that they had.

Clinton and Obama certainly disagreed over a few points, but they conducted themselves in a calm and cordial manner -- even said a couple nice things about each other.

Here's the headline of MSNBC's written commentary: Candidates go on the attack in Ohio showdown.  The first paragraph:

"Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois came under a full-out assault Tuesday night from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in their last debate before crucial primaries in Ohio and Texas that could make or break Clinton’s campaign." (MSNBC)

Was I watching a different debate? 

Yes, I saw Obama insist that Hillary was a NAFTA lover up until she started running for president, and I watched Hillary point out that for years she has given NAFTA mixed reviews.  But I didn't see any blood spill.

I saw Hillary point out that Barack (as chair of a Senate subcommittee dealing with NATO) still hasn't called an oversight hearing since he became chair about a year ago -- which I'd not heard before.  I saw Barack answer that he's been very busy since early 2007 (running for president, I think he meant).  Still, no blood spilled.

I saw Barack and Hillary go back and forth on their respective health care plans.  Barack pointed out that Hillary wants mandates, which he interprets as requiring people to pay fines if they couldn't afford to pay for health care. 

I saw Hillary point out that Barack's plan also includes mandates and that Hillary's plan would make health-care coverage affordable through reduced payments.  The health care debate went on for a while, but the blood still remained within both candidates' veins. 

At the end, Barack stated that he was honored to be in the race with Hillary, as Hillary had stated in the last debate.  Barack even said that Hillary would be a better president than John McCain.  In response, Hillary restated her positive feelings toward Barack.

All that said, what on earth is compelling MSNBC's commentators to hype a blood bath that never took place? 

And what sort of false impressions would viewers get if they didn't watch the debate but caught some of the pundits' commentary? Would they perceive Barack and Hillary -- each a possible future president of our deeply troubled nation -- as hateful, moronic troglodytes?

This would be a shame, because neither candidate behaved that way.

Don't journalists have some an ethical obligation to report things sort-of as they are?  Admittedly, we've seen Fox create dramas (and facts, for that matter) -- but isn't MSNBC supposed to practice journalism -- without injecting the sort of emotionalism we expect from members of our species who are newly plagued by puberty?

Memeorandum has other bloggers' comments: New York Post, Trailhead, Wake up America, TalkLeft, Oliver Willis, Spin Cycle, The New Republic and Political Radar.  Thanks to Johnny Dollar's Place for linking to this post.

Other BN-Politics Posts:

* Penn. governor Notices Media Bias Toward Barack or Against Hillary

* MSNBC Interview: Dana Simpson on Rove and Siegelman

* Mukasey & McConnell Backtrack re: FISA

* A Hillary Supporter Considers Photo-Gate

.

Comments

[Adam]

Agreed, the written commentary was a bit off. Certainly, there was some sniping back and forth on some contentious issues, but it was very civil by the standards of a 1-on-1 debate.

In general Matthews seems to not like Hillary, which is well-documented I guess. It's nothing explicit, really, but he tends to push the discussion in ways that make Hillary look bad. I thought it was a bit weird how big a deal he (and others) made out of Hillary saying she would "like to take back" the Iraq vote. I understand why Russert coaxed the line out of her, as many people haven't watched the other debates and Russert wants things made explicit. But as another commentator (eventually) pointed out, this was only a new LINGUISTIC height of regret. She's basically said the same thing, but in different ways, for a while. Matthews' extended metaphor about Russert "pulling in the marlin" was really over the top.

Olbermann doesn't seem to have any problem with Hillary, but he definitely seems to have taken a shine to Obama. I tend to give Olbermann a pass, though, because he's never pretended to be an impartial journalist. I thought both of the guys who actually conducted the debate were fair, though, and I thought Russert's tough interview style really added some good content to the debate. I hope we see him at debates in the fall.

I found Hillary's half-complaint about question order pretty strange. She's the sort of debater who benefits from speaking first - she gets to rattle off her bullet points and frame the debate, often forcing Obama to spend half of his time responding to her. Moreover, she got the last word in each of the last two debates, which is probably the most important last word. Hillary's "pillows" line was a bit forced and drew some muted jeers. That and the "reject/condemn" line (although Hillary certainly had a point there, Obama just did a nice job deflecting it) were probably her only missteps of the night.

[d. cupples]

I think that her admission of regret (war vote) was a good thing. Given that GWB almost never admits mistakes, any politician who can admit one will at least appear honest.

[Adam]

Oh, I agree. I think it was good that she said it and good that Russert coaxed her into making it more explicit. I just think that commentators are making a big deal out of not very much here; she had already said that she would have voted differently if she knew then what she knows now.

[Charles]

The media is desperate for drama. This campaign has been a snoozer.

I thought Obama looked testy and tired. I thought Hillary's attempts to change the momentum were weak failures. I thought that, except for the discussion of health care, it was an awful debate. But then I think most of them have been (NPR did a serious debate).