CBS News‘ Elaine Quijano, the vice presidential debate moderator.
The vice presidential debate (10/4/16) provided a stark picture of just how distorted corporate media’s priorities are compared to issues of actual consequence in people’s lives. Questions of national security and national debt consumed the evening, while issues such as abortion, poverty, LGBTQ rights and climate change were never asked about.
Some of the topics that moderator Elaine Quijano of CBS News asked about: Russia, North Korea nuking the United States, ISIS/terrorism, why the US should bomb the Syrian and Russian air force and Donald Trump’s taxes.
Topics that Quijano did not ask about: climate change, poverty, abortion, healthcare, student debt, privacy, LGBTQ rights or drug policy. There were no questions about these issues in the first presidential debate, either (FAIR.org, 9/27/16).
Quijano did ask about immigration, a topic overlooked in the presidential debate. The economy was addressed via questions about the national debt and Social Security “run[ning] out of money.” Jobs and trade issues, which were discussed at some length by the presidential candidates, were not topics of questions in the VP debate.
This is the 11th consecutive debate with a Democratic candidate for president or vice president that did not ask about poverty or abortion (FAIR.org, 5/27/16). The candidates did discuss abortion, but only in the context of an open-ended question about “balanc[ing] your personal faith and a public policy position,” which invited a religious reading of reproductive rights.
Global temperatures, August 2016—red equals record warmth. (source: NOAA)
This is the second debate in a row without a question about climate change, as the world has endured 16 consecutive months of record-breaking heat. In those two debates, there have been six questions about Russia and how it could potentially threaten the US.
In addition to the topics that were excluded from the debate, several of Quijano’s questions were grounded in right-wing ideological assumptions. The most glaring example was her question to Senator Kaine about Social Security:
In 18 years, when the Social Security trust funds run out of money, you’ll be 76. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates your benefits could be cut by as much as $7,500 per year. What would your administration do to prevent this cut?
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is mainly a vehicle to advance billionaire Pete Peterson’s well-funded campaign to slash federal retirement programs—and the doomsday insolvency scenario for Social Security is one of its favorite gambits. But it’s just that; as Huffington Post’s Ben Walsh (10/5/16) wrote in his criticism of the question:
Social Security is not in crisis, as commonly assumed and Quijano implied. The program is pretty close to fiscally sound now, and modest tweaks—like lifting a cap on the Social Security payroll tax—would be enough to take care of shortfalls.
The urgent issue of police brutality was framed not as a question of institutional racism or white supremacy, but of “race relations” (the same euphemism Lester Holt used in the first presidential debate). Asked Quijano:
After the Dallas police shooting, Police Chief David Brown said, quote: “We’re asking cops to do too much in this country. Every societal failure we put it off on the cops to solve. Not enough mental health funding, not enough drug addiction funding, schools fail, let’s give it to the cops.” Do we ask too much of police officers in this country? And how would you specifically address the chief’s concerns?
Thus a question evidently about systemic racism in our criminal justice system begins with reference to the vulnerability of police officers, pivoting away from the core concern to whether “we ask too much of police officers.” Just as with Holt, the word “racism” was never used in any of the moderator’s questions.
Finally, there was Quijano’s simplistic, good vs. evil question about Syria:
I want to turn now to Syria. Two hundred fifty thousand people, 100,000 of them children, are under siege in Aleppo, Syria. Bunker buster bombs, cluster munitions and incendiary weapons are being dropped on them by Russian and Syrian militaries. Does the US have a responsibility to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties on this scale, Governor Pence?
The question on Syria is not whether the US has the right to launch a war, or whether either candidate had a plan for the aftermath of the regime change likely to result, or whether the US’s covert support for rebels was wise, or has served to “protect civilians.” Instead, it’s posed as a simple question of whether the US is willing to put on a white hat.
As the adage goes, the media doesn’t tell you what to think, it tells you what to think about. Nowhere is this more clear than in nationally televised debates where the center-right framing of issues focuses disproportionately on national security and fiscal conservatism, marginalizing or outright ignoring the urgent concerns that confront most people daily.
Adam Johnson is a contributing analyst for FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @AdamJohnsonNYC.
You can send messages to CBS News (or via Twitter: @CBSNews). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
No left lane on the road to November
This is what “debates” look like, in a corporate-run virtual “democracy.” It’s got everything but honesty, relevance and reality. And a latina, as “moderator,” as well! As Charlie Sheen would say, WINNING!
You can listen to the answers of the only intelligent, humane, compassionate candidate with some RIGHT ANSWERS here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/5/expanding_the_debate_green_ajamu_baraka
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/5/expanding_the_debate_ajamu_baraka_spars
Both major political parties are corporations, as is the Commission on Presidential Debates, controlled by both parties. Why isn’t the Sherman Anti-trust Act used to break up at least the Commission, if not all three corporations? It seems to me their actions are monopolistic.
Just because Reagan stopped enforcing the Sherman Anti-trust Act doesn’t repeal it. Why not demand tht our legislators enforce it?
Marjorie
It’s not the legislators’ job to enforce it. That duty resides in the Executive Branch. It’s the President who has the power and duty to “Execute” the law; that power is delegated to the Attorney General for action. The people responsible include Obama and his two Attorneys General. No one in power from either two major political parties has any interest in ceding power. Their jobs depend on it.
After the theft of the presidency in 2000, when the loser received hundreds of thousands more votes than the winner, did either party even suggest a Constitution Amendment to do away with the Electoral College, on the basis of One person – One vote? Expecting the criminals to sit in judgment of themselves is expecting too much.
“Questions of national security and national debt consumed the evening, while issues such as abortion, poverty, LGBTQ rights and climate change were never asked about.” Without national security there is little time to discuss other note worthy topics.
Burgfriedenspolitik