“Journalism” Was the Loser in the Second Presidential Debate

Many so-called “journalists” completely in the tank for Obama have long claimed they were not. Hiding behind delusional and transparent walls, they convinced themselves no one could see their bias and they refuted, vehemently, any claim to the contrary. The second presidential debate on Tuesday shattered that pretense.

Representing biased journalism was debate moderator Candy Crowley. As Romney began taking Obama to the woodshed for falsely stating how quickly he labeled the murderous attacks on our embassy as terrorism, Crowley threw Obama a lifeline by arrogantly interrupting Romney to take Obama’s side. She couldn’t control herself, seeing Obama on the ropes.

Crowley also allowed Obama more time, interrupted Romney often (three times more than interrupting Obama), questioned several of Romney’s answers, and prevented Romney from elaborating on points. Crowley was as wrong as Obama on the embassy issue and wrong in moderating.

Unfortunately, Crowley was not alone in displaying bias. Reporters in a room set aside for watching the debate broke into applause after Obama ridiculed Romney’s wealth, a continuous class warfare tactic of the Obama camp. Such a display by reporters was once taboo and considered highly unprofessional. That, of course, was during a time when “journalists” were actually professional.

Over at MSNBC (a veritable Obama campaign headquarters), commentators were eager to call Obama the clear winner. That was not so clear when a later segment aired showing a Luntz focus group, consisting mainly of former Obama voters, expressing their switch to Romney after watching the debate. It seems the commentators may have jumped the gun.

Another example occurred at ABC where Romney was declared to be “not quite factual” about oil production being down on government land. However, while Romney’s percentages, “facts”, were conceded to be totally accurate, an attempt was made to make Romney look like a liar because he did not relate facts showing a slight increase in production on private land. It should be embarrassing for a newscaster to label accurate facts as “not quite factual”.

One can spin the debate however one likes, but the real loser was, clearly, modern “journalism”.

David J. Hentosh

Tags: , , , ,

2 Responses to ““Journalism” Was the Loser in the Second Presidential Debate”

  1. Basharr Says:

    Why is it there was not one conservative moderator? Tonight a card carrying liberal is going to moderate again, I have no doubt he will try to draw a line in the sand that clearly gives Obama wiggle room.

  2. Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Voter apathy edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL Says:

    [...] Thomas Jefferson Club Blog: “Journalism” Was the Loser in the Second Presidential Debate [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers

%d bloggers like this: