To riff off of demeter11′s post: Beyond David Gregory’s possible partisan affiliations (and erstwhile rap career with Karl Rove) … why do we need a national journalistic figure to moderate a Massachusetts debate?
Naturally, this is a race with huge national interest. But I’m pretty sure that a decently intelligent local journalist knows more about national issues than the national ones know about local issues. How does national health reform affect Massachusetts health reform? How does national energy policy affect our local energy markets? What about local industries? etc. I’m not at all confident that David Gregory or Tom Brokaw know that much about any of those things.
And let’s face it: The DC political press — writ large — is a joke: marinated in triviality, competing talking points, specious opinion polling, and partisan and special interest spin. I can scarcely imagine a worse crowd to cover an important race. But there we have it. We need folks closer to the ground; closer to the effects of national policy.
So here are the names I’d throw out there — I don’t necessarily agree with their politics, but they could at least be fair-minded and locally-informed. Perhaps they’re already going to be involved under the aegis of the local media consortium, but even so:
- Bob Oakes, WBUR
- RD Sahl (retired, formerly of NECN)
- Emily Rooney, WGBH
- Joan Vennochi, Globe
- Scot Lehigh, Globe
- Michael Jonas, MassINC
- Jon Keller (!!! Although in recent years he has become embittered and cranky, he did a decent job moderating Deval vs. Healey back in 2006)
- Steven Syre, Globe’s biz reporter
- Jim Braude (obvious lib tilt, but always asks tough q’s)
- Martha Bebinger (WBUR, for health care-concentrated debate)
And on and on. I don’t think I’ve got enough women on the list …
Seriously, I would much much rather have these folks grill the candidates than some DC “hotshot”.
Discuss
14 Comments . Leave a comment below.Jon Keller used to be a regular on the WBZ-TV 11:00 pm news. Then during a telecast of “Beat the Press” on WGBH-TV, he stated that “Justin Bieber has talent”. Almost immediately after that comment, he was demoted to an occasional correspondent on WBZ-TV’s 11:00 pm news.
That his son was working on a campaign to elect a republican governor in NY
Chet Curtis would be good
nt
nt
I don’t know when it started, but it gradually became more about them (scoring points, acting smart, whatever) than about finding out what we need to know.
Gregory and the other Sunday folks might as well be actors they are so scripted.
I think Emily Rooney’s show (or radio show to listen to) is 100x better than any national show.
the candidates. He’s almost incapable of pushing for a direct answer.
might be interesting, I think she would do well but does tilt.
She is good at drilling down to the crux of questions instead of skirting over the surface.
Whoever, it should be someone who doesn’t need to talk for thirty seconds between the candidates and make their own points, I hate that.
Alex Trebek, Don Orsillo, Bill Belichick, Peter Wolf would be fun, or how about Mayor Menino…
it would be funny looking at the puzzled look on Brown’s and Warren’s faces as soon as Wolf finished asking his question.
It’s our race with our issues, and I’d like someone good and reasonably nonpartisan who understands our issues instead of thinking that everything reflects in the national prism they’re viewing it by (for example, all the national pundits who were blathering on about Brown’s election showing Obama’s popularity waning clearly did not understand the simple fact of a Democratic candidate who committed political malpractice.)
I want not only a local moderator, but one who wants to get candidates to answer relevant questions instead of score points or ask gotcha questions or make themselves look important or let candidates blather on/change the subject/stick to talking points/answer the question they feel like answering instead of the one that was asked.
n/t
Quite frankly, I’ve never understood nor agreed with the received wisdom that political debates must or should be conducted by journalists, local or otherwise. Most of the journalists who have a chance at being selected have no depth of knowledge in any given subject, and thus we always end up with “trope” questions and excessive repetition of the same questions again and again in debate after debate. This cycle will most assuredly not be broken by either Tom Brokaw or David Gregory (both of whom have the depth of tracing paper). If we have to have a national journalist conduct any of these debates, why not someone who is knowledgeable across a broad spectrum of issues: Walter Isaacson, David Remnick, Garry Wills or Richard Brookheiser? Better still would be one such figure from each ideological perspective along with a neutral timekeeper. Wouldn’t a debate featuring Chris Hayes and Paul Gigot asking questions simultaneously be great? How about a debate with E.J. Dionne and Ross Douthat?
Personally, I’d like to dispatch with journalists altogether, but keep that same split ideology format. I’d love to see a debate co-hosted by the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, with each organization putting forth one questioner. Or the Sierra Club and the Petroleum Institute. Or the Center for American Progress and the Heritage Foundation.
Frankly, this approach would furnish both depth and variety of issues, both of which are sorely missing in just about every debate hosted by “elite” journalists.
would be fantastic. Each group could choose their own moderator. The same could be done with think tanks, publications, blogs etc. The only thing is that the moderators would have to have a limit on how they are allowed to speak during the debate or I fear that that candidates would not get enough time to make their case for the voters.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Mon 20 May 10:24 AM