« The Horse the Wheel and Language | Main | Ontdek je innerlijke econoom »
Good Letter, Wrong Address
Mark Thoma has an An Open Letter to ABC about the Presidential Debate signed by Brad DeLong, Kevin Drum, Henry Farrell, Eric Alterman and many others.
The debate was a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.... For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace...
I agree. The only thing the signatories got wrong was where to send the letter. The letter should have been addressed to the American public. After all, this debate, which came in the flurry of all the tabloid journalism of the past several weeks, was the most-watched of the 2008 presidential campaign. The public got what it wanted.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on April 18, 2008 at 01:30 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Despite whether I agree with your conclusion, it's hardly fair to say that the public got what it wanted. The public had no idea what questions were going to be asked at the debate or that the content would be so base. Indeed, it would be more interesting to see time-coded ratings throughout the debate rather than the Nielsen rating. An equally possible explanation is that many people feel that the Pennsylvania primary is make-or-break time for Hillary and were interested to see if she would pull a rabbit out of a hat to remain in the race. Another possible explanation is that the debate is the last between the two candidates. And so on and so on.
Posted by: Trey at Apr 18, 2008 1:34:45 PM
Even though I have been gradually joining the "elite" class in terms of
socio-economic status and outlook, occasionally stuff like this reminds me of why
the average Joe has little but disdain for the pronouncements of the elite class.
Posted by: Jim Clay at Apr 18, 2008 1:38:59 PM
Trey, maybe but in the last several weeks the media have pushed the "bitter" comment, Obama's reverend story, and the Bosnia story repeatedly - thus Gibson and Stephanopoulos simply pushed what the rest of the media pushed. Do you really think the media doesn't know what sells?
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 18, 2008 1:43:52 PM
This post is unsupported by any evidence, and your response to Trey is extremely unconvincing.
Posted by: Algernon at Apr 18, 2008 1:51:16 PM
"The public got what it wanted."
In order for that to be true, wouldn't the public had to have known before tuning in that the debate would be a farce?
And how would they have known that? This wasn't Fox or CNBC.
Posted by: save_the_rustbelt at Apr 18, 2008 1:52:17 PM
Agree with StR. What's your foundation for "The public got what it wanted"? There was no poll, call in, survey, etc. to get the top ten questions of the public. You are taking the efficient market idea too far.
Posted by: David Zetland at Apr 18, 2008 1:57:36 PM
Read the letter "trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast." Hmmm... now who would want to rebroadcast something the public didn't want?
Everyone complaining should explain why the media focused on the trash talk to begin with.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 18, 2008 2:03:59 PM
Alex: You are assuming an informed public that keeps up with the day-to-day inside-baseball aspects of the campaign. It is equally plausible that interest in the campaigns peaks around the time of primaries; since there have been no primaries for a month or so, many people may have tuned in to see if anything new had developed. Obviously, I have equally little data to prove this point. I am merely suggesting that individuals may use the debate to obtain new information about the candidates rather than to see responses to existing information.
Posted by: Trey at Apr 18, 2008 2:04:36 PM
Don Hewitt, the director and producer of the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, said ABC’s structuring of the questions was an acknowledgment that a debate entails “a big dose of show biz” and “trying to keep an audience.”
“When you’re in television,” Mr. Hewitt said, “that’s your job.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/us/politics/18moderator.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 18, 2008 2:10:32 PM
The questions finally did get to policy and I have not seen one clip or read one story about what either of them said on any public policy issue. Critics of the debate are doing the same thing that the moderators did, but with a different spin. After all only 13 million people watch the debate and there are over a 100 million voters that they could inform on those issues that they think are important, rather than spending all there time covering the even less important topic of the debate format.
Posted by: Joan at Apr 18, 2008 2:12:28 PM
"The public got what it wanted."
As an economist, don't you study things like the consumer's lack of access to information on the product to be consumed? Some people paid money to see
"Manos, the Hands of Fate." Were they really signalling Hollywood, "More like this, please?"
Posted by: L2P at Apr 18, 2008 2:12:53 PM
Joan nails it!
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 18, 2008 2:15:30 PM
Alex,
I agree with your premise that ABC and the two moderators are trying to deliver a product that appeals to their audience.
The mistake you are making is to therefore assume that the product they delivered did indeed achieve that goal - that is indeed taking "efficient market thinking" several light-years too far. There are no arbitrageurs here pushing debates closer to their "optimal design", there are no competing products allowing consumers to switch to other debate designs, and so on. All ABS has is some bad market research, experience based on very few data points in a fast-changing environment, and the moderators' and producers' gut feeling for what people might want. Thus the forces pushing us closer to an "efficient" product are somewhere between weak and non-existent, and what we get in the end is almost entirely based on the perceptions and preferences of the moderators and producers. Letting them know ex-post that their product sucked is entirely appropriate.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Apr 18, 2008 2:21:38 PM
Sorry, but Joan is just as lost as you are.
Both candidates are spending too much time parrying bs dirt that the media is unearthing and propogating through this sisyphusian series of "news cycles."
Posted by: meter at Apr 18, 2008 2:25:35 PM
Let me add that you may well be right - probably the debate design was exactly what the audience wanted. But there seems to be little evidence either for or against this claim, which seems based on your prior about people's preferences and an excessively strong belief in the power of competitive forces. On the other hand, all evidence we have so far indicates that a substantial subset of the audience hated it.
Posted by: Commenterlein at Apr 18, 2008 2:26:05 PM
Agree with other commenter, Tyler. You are confusing two conclusions; the first, that ABC knew what the public wanted and did a good job at marketing the debate as such, and second, that ABC actually delivered the product that they promised in their marketing promotions. The two aren't very highly correlated.
The level of outrage would be much lower if the debate on ABC were aligned with people's expectations, either because a) people want to watch petty commentary of this type or b) people expect petty commentary like this from the medai anad are not very surprised by it. I strongly suspect that if b) were the case, ratings would have been very low, so you are basically making the argument that a) is the case, but nevertheless lots of people are upset about it.
Posted by: Patrick Minton at Apr 18, 2008 2:26:27 PM
Alex, just out of curiosity, what do you make of the WSJ's take on the Gibson/Obama exchange regarding the cap gains tax? Is this an outlier from the rest of the debate, do you think it was based on such a faulty premise that it's useless, or do you have some other account for it?
WSJ's take here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120847505709424727.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
Jonah Goldberg's much shorter summary: "He conceded the premise that revenues go up when you cut capital gains taxes. But he said it would be worthwhile to raise them nonetheless as an issue of "fairness" because some people are making too much money."
Posted by: Jon Boguth at Apr 18, 2008 2:53:15 PM
Or maybe, just maybe, the public is on to something.
Maybe it really does matter whether somebody can't tell the truth about easily verifiable matters of her own life.
Maybe it really does matter that somebody either 1. likes racist tirades, or 2. can't tell that they are occurring while sitting in front of them for two decades.
Policy-wise they are barely distinguishable anyway.
Posted by: holmegm at Apr 18, 2008 2:57:15 PM
"facing the nation and the *world*"
Is that a US presidential election or did I missed something?
Posted by: G at Apr 18, 2008 2:59:05 PM
Charlie Gibson was the best moderator this primary season, by a wide margin. In a prior debate he allowed candidates of both parties to give long answers and respond to attacks without time limits. He allowed candidates to engage in genuine debate as well—I remember a sequence in which the Republican candidates debated illegal immigration for several minutes without Charlie Gibson feeling the need to butt in.
What is the substantive policy difference between Obama and Hillary anyway?
Posted by: 8 at Apr 18, 2008 3:10:13 PM
Assume for a moment that you are a producer at ABC, you've been given some air time and told to produce a debate. As you begin you keep in mind that ABC’s main goal is to make money, today and indefinitely into the future. So far they have been pretty good about doing this so there’s a decent amount for you to play with. In order to ensure that your debate will satisfy current advertisers and attract future advertisers you hire some fancy; commentators, set designers, make-people, light people, and all the rest that actually do the show. Now it seems as though many of you would stop there. You’ve got George; you’ve got the fancy set; so let’s just shoot from the hip when it comes to the questions. It also seems like many of you would not last very long as producers. Some of you however would say ok, I’ve got George, I’ve got the set, the make-up will be perfect and the lighting will wow them, but people watch a debate for….. the debate, so let’s make sure we’ve got something that will keep them, and bring them back. Surveys are cheap, I’ll take a thousand, focus groups are a little more expensive, I’ll take a hundred. Now I know what America wants, I will do my very best to deliver; if I don’t people won’t be back to ABC for the next debate and I won’t be ask to produce it, or anything else.
So for those of you who doubt that competitive forces are at work, I guess you’ll be watching the next debate, you certainly deserve it.
Now letting the studio know after the fact that the debate they produces was horrific is not without its merits. However I’d guess that upwards of 99.9% of the 13 million that watched send no letters because they were pleased / not so displeased that they’d write about it.
If you want to make a difference in what you get before the fact, take the 10 minutes to do the surveys when the telemarketer calls.
Posted by: Mason at Apr 18, 2008 3:10:32 PM
Alex,
First, I apologize for my earlier unkind comment.
You requested that "everyone complaining should explain why the media focused on the trash talk to begin with". I like holmegm's answer, and would have a hard time stating it any better. I would add one thing- even though I plan to vote for McCain, I would think that Democrats would want to go through this before the general election, because Stephanopoulos was right- this kind of thing is going to heavily affect their electability. Policy talk is also, in my opinion, overrated among the intelligentsia. Often the candidates either do not intend to even try to implement the policy (e.g. Obama and NAFTA), or they will try and will not succeed. Very few of their policy positions will ever see the light of day. I am not saying that talking policy isn't valuable, just that it isn't as valuable, relative to other topics like "character", as many people believe.
Posted by: Jim Clay at Apr 18, 2008 3:17:55 PM
The public got what it wanted? Not hardly. Not even close.
Posted by: bill at Apr 18, 2008 3:22:14 PM
So for those of you who doubt that competitive forces are at work, I guess you’ll be watching the next debate, you certainly deserve it.
Who was doubting that competitive forces are at work?
What I doubt is that the outcome is as self-evidently negative as many here seem to think that it is.
Posted by: holmegm at Apr 18, 2008 3:22:37 PM
The whole thing is a farce. The public are sheep and politicians are corrupt looters. If only we could speed up evolution.
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Apr 18, 2008 3:34:39 PM
I don't understand the criticism of ABC. Obama and Clinton hardly differ at all on policy. They have the same basic campaign theme: "Not you, me." That is it. The only difference between them is character and policy. So if they are going to debate the only action is going to be on these two issues. This is the problem with debates between candidates who are marketing themselves identically to the same group. Asking them about policy is going to be vacuous or embarassing (if they end up talking about economics).
Posted by: Barry Ickes at Apr 18, 2008 3:40:42 PM
I find it interesting that the thrust of your argument seems to be "the public got what it wanted" as though that is the best arbiter on how to decide anything. You may (rightly) deride limits on freedom (say gun control), limits on tariffs and subsidies (don't protect steal, let the Caribbean export sugar, remove farm subsidies) but these are popular programs with broad public support. And if you disagree with these particular examples, surely there are many more. Maybe the top ranking show between the two candidates would be Fear Factor or some other sort of mass-produced schlock, but is that really the best way to decide on the format and content of a presidential debate?
Posted by: Dan at Apr 18, 2008 3:54:44 PM
Just because that many watched doesn't mean they saw and heard what they wanted. What weird category of reasoning is that?
Posted by: bob at Apr 18, 2008 3:56:49 PM
Look you egghead Canuk, policy is boring . I suspect the Queen will welcome you back over the border into her arms should you become too disgusted with the "American public". My complaint is that the debate wasn't interesting enough to make "The Soup!" Just kidding (except about the Soup).
Posted by: jim at Apr 18, 2008 4:00:54 PM
Trey, maybe but in the last several weeks the media have pushed the "bitter" comment, Obama's reverend story, and the Bosnia story repeatedly - thus Gibson and Stephanopoulos simply pushed what the rest of the media pushed. Do you really think the media doesn't know what sells?
To a certain extent...yes.
For instance:
Public Blames Media for Too Much Celebrity Coverage
Or:
from Two Decades of American News Preferences
On balance, there is scant evidence that during the last quarter century -- despite major changes in the news "menu" -- the American audience has moved toward a diet of softer news. News tastes have become neither less nor more serious since the 1980s.
The evidence shows that the much-discussed soft-news genre -- indicated here by Tabloid News -- has not grown more alluring for the national audience. This is not to say that media outlets have erred financially in devoting substantial coverage to celebrity and scandal. In today's competitive news environment, small ratings shifts can translate into big economic gains. A cable news outlet doesn't have to engage a national audience on a story like Anna Nicole Smith to justify the saturation coverage. Engaging the tabloid audience can pay off.
In a niche market, the niche may rule, but that doesn't mean the niche is the majority.
Posted by: Josh R. at Apr 18, 2008 4:04:33 PM
Trey - "it's hardly fair to say that the public got what it wanted. The public had no idea what questions were going to be asked at the debate or that the content would be so base"
Just because the public didn't know what it was getting doesn't mean the producer didn't know what the public wanted.
Zetland - "You are taking the efficient market idea too far."
L2P - "As an economist, don't you study things like the consumer's lack of access to information on the product to be consumed?"
Commenter - The mistake you are making is to therefore assume that the product they delivered did indeed achieve that goal - that is indeed taking "efficient market thinking" several light-years too far"
But perhaps I should have said "...competetive forces are working..."
Posted by: Mason at Apr 18, 2008 4:10:36 PM
I don't understand the criticism of ABC. Obama and Clinton hardly differ at all on policy. They have the same basic campaign theme: "Not you, me." That is it. The only difference between them is character and policy. So if they are going to debate the only action is going to be on these two issues. This is the problem with debates between candidates who are marketing themselves identically to the same group. Asking them about policy is going to be vacuous or embarassing (if they end up talking about economics).
Wait, so do they or don't they differ on policy?
Secondly, they are not identical in policy. They may share some overarching goals (say, universal health coverage or a reduction in the troop level in Iraq) but how they will go about achieving these goals (methods) and how exactly they envision them (mandated care? immediate withdrawal?) is a fecund area for discussion especially for the many, many millions of individuals who aren't spending their time on political blogs every day hashing this out for themselves.
Finally, in what world does a question about wearing a flag pin have anything productive to say about one's character? In other words, they're not even seriously doing that-hell, if they were we might hear about the Keating Five for once or talk a bit more in depth about all the lobbyists on the Straight Talk Express or even in Obama's court and so on. Instead, they're engaging in shallow entertainment, gotcha politics to please the coliseum crowd they think are screaming for blood, but who just want to get the hell out of this cycle of American history. At the end of the day, these people aren't interested in truth, they're interesting in making money, becoming celebrities, and having a nice life. Just like nearly everybody else.
Posted by: Josh R. at Apr 18, 2008 4:13:20 PM
I am sick and tired of you guys pontificating on how I (the American public) think or what I want. You're no more psychic than the next guy. We had no idea what would happen when the debate started and I for one wanted to here some substance on issues other than personality and the usual "what's bRITTANY DONE TODAY CRAP" It's not what I want and I turn it off every timeit comes up. You can't blame us for NEWS reporting decaying into this tabloid trash. It's like being blamed for voting for Mugabe when his the only name on the ballot. other than PBS where can you go for Broadcast journalism that means something?
Posted by: rpooh52 at Apr 18, 2008 4:25:28 PM
Mason,
What's your point?
Mine is that the fact that people watched something is not evidence that what the product is what they wanted. It's simply evidence that the product was produced, and the product was advertised as something they wanted. The vast numbers of crappy, crappy shows I've watched over the years is plenty of reasons to show the fallacy of that reasoning.
I'd suggest you think again at what market signals actually are.
Posted by: l2p at Apr 18, 2008 4:27:56 PM
They may share some overarching goals (say, universal health coverage or a reduction in the troop level in Iraq) but how they will go about achieving these goals (methods) and how exactly they envision them (mandated care? immediate withdrawal?) is a fecund area for discussion especially for the many, many millions of individuals who aren't spending their time on political blogs every day hashing this out for themselves.
I'd agree, but you picked the two topics that have been done to death in the previous twentysome debates. I'd like to here them talk about trade policy, biofuel mandates, or any of a host of issues that haven't been discussed endlessly on their debates.
They did discuss withdrawal from Iraq-- both agreed that they would withdraw within six months even if the generals said it would be a disaster, because the president sets policy, not tactics, and civilian control is important. (The answer I'd expect from any President, really.)
The capital gains question and the tax pledge was interesting. I'm not sure how either plans to balance the budget with new spending and without raising taxes on those making less than $200-250k, as they pledged. I'm interested in how Sen. Obama apparently claimed that he's looking into a doughnut system for payroll taxes, taxing amounts over $200k but not $95k-$200k.
Posted by: John Thacker at Apr 18, 2008 4:29:23 PM
It's not what I want and I turn it off every timeit comes up. You can't blame us for NEWS reporting decaying into this tabloid trash.
rpooh52, you seem to have this odd opinion that what you and I like is automatically what "the people" like. I've never watched Survivor, Lost, American Idol, or 24. That doesn't mean I go around claiming that the networks are broadcasting them against "the people's will." I should think that the continued circulation of People magazine alone shows that celebrity journalism is pretty popular. Surely you admit that people know what they're getting when they read People, yes?
Posted by: John Thacker at Apr 18, 2008 4:32:22 PM
I can't believe the "outrage" being generated by this debate. Without fail every other Democratic debate has been one softball question after another. From the shoolmarm to Chris "I love Obama" Matthews the previous moderators have been pathetic. If it wasn't for Saturday Night Live making the MSM see the extreme bias towards Barack "the untouchable" Obama we would have even more "diamonds or pearls, Hillary" questions. The issue of charactor is completely relevent and between Barry's bizarre associations and Hillary's "duck and cover" lies the public has every right to hear their responses to these topics. I would challenge anyone to define "any" major policy differences between the two. Lets see, cut and run in Iraq, higher taxes for the "rich", "free healthcare", open borders, etc...
Posted by: Keith at Apr 18, 2008 4:40:49 PM
"Very few of their policy positions will ever see the light of day. I am not saying that talking policy isn't valuable, just that it isn't as valuable, relative to other topics like "character", as many people believe."
Policy discussions would matter if their positions were built on foundational principle, the same thing that would make character discussions important. And if they are not, then discussions are pretty useless as future predictors. I guess that leaves past performance and present gaffes to judge them on but these folks line of work is hiding their true selves.
It would be one thing if these guys were just incredible and we had to make our decision on minor (marginal) points. But, it's hard for me to believe that this crop is the best we could come up with. I'm more interested in the process that settles on the likes of these choices than a debate that amounts to a coin flip.
A politician worries about taking a stand because he's likely to tick off as many people as he pleases. And the ticked off may be more motivated. Maybe the news folks act the same way. They irked some policy wonks, whoopty do. I changed the channel as soon as I saw it was the debate. I knew they couldn't give me what I want.
Posted by: Andrew at Apr 18, 2008 4:51:31 PM
What a crock. If ABC had really given the people what they wanted, they would not have even televised the debate. Instead they would have shown somthething like "CSI Meets American Idol."
Your whole post is "post hoc" and pointless, but to entertain it for a moment: The people are to blame. Let's assume they receive the Wisdom of Tabarrok and understand. What next? Tell ABC about it, obviously.
So, what. You're criticizing Thoma for cutting to the chase?
Posted by: David at Apr 18, 2008 4:51:54 PM
It's strange to blame the moderators for a lack of substantive discussion. The candidates were free at any time to enter into such a discussion; they chose not to. Instead, they repeatedly went off into tit-for-tat rambles. (who cares about the Wood board?)
And the second half of the debate undercuts their letter, as well. I saw no evidence to indicate that questions about policy in the second half provoked any reasoned or informed discussion. From where I was sitting, the policy discussion was lacking and vapid whether it was asked about or not. Was that ABC's fault, too?
Posted by: Victor at Apr 18, 2008 4:57:46 PM
I'd agree, but you picked the two topics that have been done to death in the previous twentysome debates. I'd like to here them talk about trade policy, biofuel mandates, or any of a host of issues that haven't been discussed endlessly on their debates.
I'd agree with that.
Two points:
a.) Not everybody watched those previous debates. I believe this last one was the most watched of all. So, for whom have those issues been debated into the ground?
b.) I think that kinda gets at what some critics, including myself, get upset with the media for--they seem to think it's about them. "But we've already talked about this, wah!" Well, yes, but not everybody was paying attention and, really, another five to ten minutes on going over each candidates Iraq policy or whatever isn't going to kill anybody but can make the million or even more voters who didn't get a chance or didn't choose to tune in to a debate in Nevada a tad bit more informative on those issues.
Posted by: Josh R. at Apr 18, 2008 5:02:59 PM
AddenduM: and when it comes to Iraq, which is a rather fluid situation, there is no excuse. What they said five months ago may have been made irrelevant by recent events. Alternatively, those recent events may have fortified those beliefs and are thus worthy additions to the "debate."
Posted by: Josh R. at Apr 18, 2008 5:04:11 PM
My point is that just because the average person didn't know what the show was going to be about doesn't mean that the show's producers didn't know what the average person wanted.
They're called surveys, and focus groups. I may be going out on a limb, but I'd bet TV stations have/did used them to figure out what people wanted in that show.
Maybe they didn't get exactly what you wanted, but you watched, and by the sounds of it, you'll be watching again.
If I went to a store and bought shoes I saw in a Nike commercial, then said I didn’t like them, then went back and bought 6 more, what would you think? I’d think the shoes were in demand. Maybe their not my ideal shoe, because they’re made as one size fits all, but I must prefer them to going without, correct?
Posted by: Mason at Apr 18, 2008 5:11:44 PM
If you didn't like your Nikes, don't take it up with Nike directly. Send your complaint to the public at large. It's not Nike's fault the public demands inferior shoes.
Posted by: David at Apr 18, 2008 5:25:17 PM
Sleazy candidates make for sleazy debates.
Posted by: jorod at Apr 18, 2008 5:33:40 PM
The readers if this blog seem pretty confident about what "the public" wants. I think it's more likely that the readers of this blog are confident about what they want, and assume their opinion must hold for the general public.
Posted by: Mark N. at Apr 18, 2008 6:29:30 PM
ABC News' web site registered close to 17,000 negative comments concerning the moderation shortly after debate. So, maybe the public didn't get what it wanted after all.
Posted by: rangergranger at Apr 18, 2008 7:17:00 PM
So when the Super Bowl sucks but millions of people tune in in expectation of a better game, your conclusion is that the people got what they wanted? Why should I read anything else you write if that's how you think about things?
Posted by: Ted Pastrick at Apr 18, 2008 7:19:25 PM
Alex shows who the condescending elitist really is!
Intentional or not you just put that whole nonsense into some real perspective.
Posted by: Bryan at Apr 18, 2008 8:59:08 PM
It's amusing to note that nobody complained when the earlier Republican debates were full of sneering gotcha 'questions' from hostile news people but when the debate is between two liberals the debate must be gentle and supportive.
Posted by: RJ at Apr 18, 2008 10:14:50 PM
Unfortunately, Alex is right. This is what many of the people want to watch and discuss. Even on a relatively "high brow" blog like this, notice which posts get the most comments.
Then again, if we want to improve the quality of debate questions, it's probably more effective to complain directly to the organizers than to try to indirectly affect them by changing preferences of the American Public. Maybe, just maybe, if the media focus on better topics, then the American Public will, on average, pay more attention to those topics.
Posted by: a student of economics at Apr 18, 2008 10:44:54 PM
When people turn into an ABC debate between Clinton and Obama, the keywords are "Clinton and Obama", not "ABC". It could just as easily be on any other network or hosted by some other organization, and it would have little or no effect on the number of people tuning in. If the magical polls and surveys and focus groups told them that people would tune into ABC debates because they could see into the future to know that ABC would host Survivor-style asshole debates, those must be the most wrongheaded surveys and focus groups in the universe. People tune in for candidates, not moderators.
What ABC did that night was give every liberal candidate (this was clearly a negative sum game for Clinton and Obama) an excuse to spurn ABC. Meaning, the one reason people had for tuning into ABC that day--that the candidates were going to debate--is now in doubt for all future instances of debate. Gibson and Stephanopoulus, at least, aren't likely to moderate any more debates involving a Democrat presidential candidate.
Does the public want nonsense debates? Who knows--I know I for one find it hard to look away from car crashes. But my desire to see action packed bullshit debates is irrelevant (actually, I didn't see it)--the real commodity that ABC should be trying to acquire here is the prestige necessary to force candidates to come before them. And they just lost that--big time. Especially if Obama ultimately wins.
Call the public assholes if you want. We probably are. What is definitely clear, though, is that ABC was acting irrationally--they are attempting to cash in on my being an asshole when it doesn't make sense to do so. The only thing worse than being an asshole is being a stupid asshole. But human beings in general are irrational, short sighted creatures living in a complex world far beyond our understanding, so inefficient enterprises, competing mostly with other inefficient enterprises, live on. ABC was stupid, and they will live to be stupid many more times, as all other surviving human beings and businesses and governments have.
Posted by: Consumatopia at Apr 18, 2008 10:48:28 PM
This is what many of the people want to watch and discuss. Even on a relatively "high brow" blog like this, notice which posts get the most comments.
Some of us think that the norms of debate moderation and news gathering will effect the quality of all future political arguments, which is ultimately a bigger issue than the results of this one election.
Posted by: Consumatopia at Apr 18, 2008 10:59:09 PM
Probably repeating previous arguments, but let me weight in.
True, commenters point out the national debate market is incomplete, not enough products and not enough producers.
But, as other commenters point out, ABC knows it is in an incomplete market, so over time they test consumer sentiment thus , like any monopoly, they operate as if they know they are in an incomplete market, compensating in time for deficiencies in space.
Posted by: Matt at Apr 18, 2008 11:12:07 PM
Fantastic post: Dr Pangloss would be proud!
Posted by: engels at Apr 18, 2008 11:28:31 PM
Tyler- you and your gang dead wrong on your attack on ABC. The questions were all fair game. The self-righteous attacks by Mark are absurd. The debate has been running for months and we know nothing more about these two than we did before the election started. The questions raised shed light on who these people are. You and Mark owe ABC and the American people an apology.
Posted by: bee at Apr 18, 2008 11:29:42 PM
It's all showbiz and the claim is always that they are giving people what they want. Wrong.
MSM and Hollywood are in decline. Yes, it's right to lump them together. Box office and viewer/reader numbers are in decline across the board and have been for years.
Posted by: Max at Apr 19, 2008 12:38:02 AM
Mark Thoma is a lefty who didn't like to see his candidates beaten up. All the rest smacks of "I'm shocked, shocked."
Posted by: h-dawg at Apr 19, 2008 1:06:37 AM
Folks, there are two possibilities here. Either lots of people care about 'character' questions (as well as policy questions), or they don't. If people care about character questions, then ABC's questions were relevant and appropriate, and Thoma/Drum/DeLong don't have any basis for their complaint. Or, if people don't care about such things, then they will certainly ignore such questions in their voting decisions, and there's no reason for Thoma/Drum/DeLong to be particularly upset about ABC's use of its airtime to show stuff that people don't care about.
Either way, there's no particular reason to complain. Unless, of course, you understand that people do care about such things, and you realize that your candidate didn't handle those questions well at all. This is just a bunch of partisan Obama fanboys misrepresenting their partisanship as moral outrage. Dog bites man.
Posted by: Don at Apr 19, 2008 6:29:18 AM
Their ``American Public'' is actually a segment, namely soap opera women, which is the target demographic of all MSM news since it's the only reliable audience that's big enough to pay the bills.
Send your ridicule there.
Their tastes edit every public debate.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at Apr 19, 2008 7:03:47 AM
I've a follow-up: Revealed Preference.
Posted by: Richard at Apr 19, 2008 1:11:48 PM
As for the substance of the controversy over the ABC debate, Peter Wehner gets the last word:
Consider this thought experiment: Assume that a conservative candidate for the GOP nomination spent two decades at a church whose senior pastor was a white supremacist who uttered ugly racial (as well as anti-American) epithets from the pulpit. Assume, too, that this minister wasn’t just the candidate’s pastor but also a close friend, the man who married the candidate and his wife, baptized his two daughters, and inspired the title of his best-selling book.
In addition, assume that this GOP candidate, in preparing for his entry into politics, attended an early organizing meeting at the home of a man who, years before, was involved in blowing up multiple abortion clinics and today was unrepentant, stating his wish that he had bombed even more clinics. And let’s say that the GOP candidate’s press spokesman described the relationship between the two men as “friendly.”
Do you think that if those moderating a debate asked the GOP candidate about these relationships for the first time, after 22 previous debates had been held, that other journalists would become apoplectic at the moderators for merely asking about the relationships? Not only would there be a near-universal consensus that those questions should be asked; there would be a moral urgency in pressing for answers. We would, I predict, be seeing an unprecedented media “feeding frenzy.”
The truth is that a close relationship with a white supremacist pastor and a friendly relationship with an abortion clinic bomber would, by themselves, torpedo a conservative candidate running for president. There is an enormous double standard at play here, one rooted in the fawning regard many journalists have for Barack Obama. They have a deep, even emotional, investment in his candidacy. And, as we are seeing, they will turn on anyone, even their colleagues, who dare raise appropriate and searching questions–the kind journalists are supposed to ask. The reaction to Stephanopoulos and Gibson is a revealing and depressing glimpse into the state of modern journalism.
Posted by: Freedom, Soar! at Apr 19, 2008 3:02:51 PM
It sounds like the elitists are just getting upset because their candidate is no longer getting preferential treatment.
Posted by: Eric Childs at Apr 19, 2008 9:35:30 PM
Wasn't this the only debate on major network? The others were on cable or the internet. I think that would give it a ratings edge.
Posted by: Tom at Apr 19, 2008 10:03:31 PM
Wasn't this the only debate on major network? The others were on cable or the internet. I think that would give it a ratings edge.
Posted by: Tom at Apr 19, 2008 10:03:56 PM
I think Barry was right on with the idea that the policy issues aren't that important and thus substantive debate is going to go to character and credibility.
If we believe the median voter theorem holds any water, we can expect the candidates to propose essentially the same policies. I realize there are some policy differences between the two, but why should the average voter care about specific policy proposals?
Even generally uninformed voters understand that proposals are subject to negotiation and compromise on the way to becoming law.
More importantly, the average voter does know that politicians lie and that politicians negotiate and change specific policies.
In that context, there's really not a lot of reason to debate policy. On the other hand it underscores the importance of debating character and credibility. We want to know, in the end, what these guys' core beliefs are (if they have any) and how they'll react in tough situations.
It's certainly an unpleasant process for all involved, but it strikes me as more logical than pretending a debate on insubstantial and inconsequential policy specifics matters one bit.
Posted by: MikeDC at Apr 20, 2008 2:19:48 PM
Alex's assertion sounds plausible but is not supported with any data. I suppose Alex's point could be applied to George Bush. When we last tuned in during 2004, we turned the dial to Bush. So why complain? The market has spoken.
I doubt the media will reform. My guess is that it will just keep getting worse. There is a shot, though, that journalists will eventually be replaced by bloggers, which would probably be an advance.
The thing about journalists is that they don't actually have expertise in anything. Their authority derives only from the monopoly that news organizations previously held over public discussion. That monopoly is being destroyed and with it perhaps the influence of journalists. The world will be much better when nobody cares one way or the other how Charles Gibson would frame the debate. I would rather yell at Alex, who at least is rational if insufficiently empirical.
Posted by: Gerard MacDonell at Apr 21, 2008 12:10:31 PM
In fact, there is *some* data on the question, and it appears not to support Alex's view at all. Check out the poll results in the first "Update" here.
Posted by: Michael Sullivan at Apr 21, 2008 5:45:26 PM
