ABC‘s David Muir and Martha Raddatz, questioning Democrats on behalf of the 36 percent of Americans who agree with Donald Trump.
The Democratic and Republican debates have this asymmetry: Republican candidates are presumed to need ideological sympathizers among their questioners—Fox News, for example, or Salem Media, which teams up with CNN for GOP debates—while Democrats are thought content to be quizzed by representatives of mainstream corporate media outlets like CNN, CBS and ABC (FAIR Action Alert, 10/9/15).
This set up resulted, on the Republican side, in the spectacle of Salem Media‘s Hugh Hewitt pressing GOP contender Ben Carson to declare his willingness to “kill innocent children by not the scores, but the hundreds and the thousands.” (Carson’s response: “You got it. You got it.”)
And on the Democratic side, the result is debates like the one we got on December 19.
Although primary debates are ostensibly intended to help members of each major party select their nominee, the questions asked by the debate moderators from ABC—World News Tonight anchor David Muir and national security correspondent Martha Raddatz—consistently posed questions from the right.
As when Raddatz pressed Hillary Clinton: “Our latest poll shows that more Americans believe arming people, not stricter gun laws, is the best defense against terrorism. Are they wrong?” Or when she pushed Bernie Sanders on “sending US combat troops to join a coalition to fight ISIS.”
She asked a couple of questions “about a new terrorist tool used in the Paris attacks, encryption”—even though, as The Intercept‘s Dan Froomkin reported, evidence “suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not encrypted.” Still, Raddatz was able to use the dubious encryption claims to push Clinton to “force [Apple] to give law enforcement a key to encrypted technology by making it law.”
As for Muir, he sought an endorsement of racial profiling from Sanders, citing “a neighbor in San Bernardino who reportedly witnessed packages being delivered to that couple’s home, that it set off red flags, but they didn’t report it because they were afraid to profile.” He also pushed Clinton and Martin O’Malley to endorse “the idea of a halt or a pause” in acceptance of Syrian refugees, and challenged Clinton to explain what was wrong with Donald Trump’s “proposed ban on Muslims coming to America,” given that “36 percent of Americans, more than a third, agree with him.”
What about the concerns of the nearly two-thirds of Americans who don’t agree with Donald Trump? Progressive perspectives on security and foreign policy were hard to discern in the questioning. As with the most recent Republican debate (FAIR Blog, 12/16/15), “terrorism” was treated as it meant “political violence by Muslims,” with right-wing mass killings like the Charleston church massacre and the assault on Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs going unmentioned.
The drone war was ignored by the moderators, as were civilian casualties. The disastrous consequences of the Libyan intervention that Clinton presided over was brought up at one point, but the premise of the question was that Clinton “should have done more to fill the leadership vacuum left behind”—not that the secretary of State shouldn’t have been using military force to overthrow governments she disliked.
Even though the world’s leaders had reached a landmark climate change just a week before the debate, “climate change” and “global warming” didn’t pass the moderators’ lips.
ABC News‘ approach to domestic issues was not much different. Raddatz pressed on the cost of a single-payer healthcare plan–“Can you tell us specifically how much people will be expected to pay?”—and on his plan to make public colleges tuition-free: “How does that really lower the cost other than just shifting the cost to taxpayers?” She tried to get Clinton and O’Malley to promise not to raise takes on households making $250,000 or less—in other words, families who make more than 97 percent of the country.
Muir asked all three candidates a question about Black Lives Matter–but he focused on the “so-called Ferguson effect, police holding back because they’re afraid of backlash.” Voters who are worried about “a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement” were represented by ABC News—but those who are more worried about police officers killing unarmed African-Americans with impunity were out of luck.
CORRECTION: Fixed David Muir’s first name.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. Follow him on Twitter: @JNaureckas.
You can send feedback to ABC News here (or send messages on Twitter: @ABCPolitics. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
I think you mean DAVID Muir, not John Muir, the late conservationist?
What? Peace loving liberals goose stepping billions of innocent children to their exaggerated greenhouse gas ovens?
The Reefer Madness of Climate Blame Was 34 Years of “could be” THE END OF DAYS.
Climate change science was NEVER able to agree it was as real as smoking causing cancer, not unless they are also only 99% certain the planet isn’t flat. But you eager “believers” can keep abusing vague climate science for another 34 years of climate action delay but let’s see who history calls the “Merchant of CO2 Fear”. Who’s the neocon?
The smoggy 70’s are defeated and Smog Warning Days have been rare for decades and the science of fracking is giving our children an end to the oil wars and cheap energy for generations to come.
“Life is good.” are the three words you miserable drama queen libs love to hate.
john muir would likely have asked more pertinent questions. What a farce.
The questions reveal more about those posing them than those responding to them, don’t they?
Normally love your posts but lost a lot of credibility with me, not to mention challenged the very name of your organization, by not proofreading.
One thing is certain, the Corporate Media is about “Them” and trying to decide for the people, regards less of the actual facts, but then this is no surprise. They stopped dealing with the facts about the time we had an “Acting President”.
David ‘Nut’zuki – what ever your smoking must be some good shit. Is your tiny little bubble world filled with the smoke from it? Nice troll name, does it have a matching Bridge or are you one the short list? Oh yay and The RWNJ’s called and said they are missing their stools so could you come in for bit so they park their butts. They are tired of standing up, and need a mindless piece of furniture that won’t best them in debates.
All of mainstream media owned/funded by the corporate rich, all pumping propaganda into the naïve minds of the mainstream public, is there no solution?
But surely, time is the great arbitrator of truth, so be patient we must.
I blame our Corporate Overlords for this situation.
This two year exercise in futility simply continues on its merry way, with the only visible (via national broadcast) candidates representing either the extreme right (Republicans) or those on the center and center-right (Democrats).
The only candidate of the duopoly who, in a just world, probably wouldn’t be in jail is Bernie Sanders, and his progressive credentials end at the NRA, defense contractors, drone warfare and his enthusiasm for imperial adventures. He’s no Eugene McCarthy, no George McGovern.
With corporations pouring money into both parties, the public ought to be able to expect at least one or two credible candidates; instead we’re stuck with an orgy of clowns led by an orange-haired bully boy who inherited a fortune and seems to be modelling his stage persona after Benito Mussolini, while the smart money continues to wink, nudge and assure the public that Hillary has a lock on the Democratic nomination.
Is this really the BEST government that money can buy?
Here’s what the GOP dosen’t want you to know. Bernie Sanders economic stance is slightly more Conservative than your fathers Republican Party. Here’s their mid 1950s Presidential Platform, and this a platform to be truly proud of. Bernie wasn’t the only Socialist!
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25838
John Muir!?! hahahah. Too many errors to count on this site lately. FAIR has become a joke.
These comments are mostly garbled non-sequitor, possibly from too many winter solstice hot toddies. Cheer up, folks. Lots of other people are also getting wise to our bought-off media.
@ Brigetta McElvogue – Good link! How far we’ve morally regressed in the past ~60 yrs. And while I realize that platforms don’t necessarily reflect the actual workings/policies that the party implements when they’re elected, just the fact that the zeitgeist in ’56 was so different — almost 180 degrees from today. Right now it seems that neither political party is willing to put even half of those things in their official platform. And any Republican who advocated all those positions would be unceremoniously dropped from the party.
My big disappointment with the debate was Hillary not abiding by the time rules, rambling on and on and thereby cutting down on her opponents’ time. I believe this also ties into the corporate media’s support of her for president. A pity but that’s what our election process has come down to.