NPR YouTube Debate Analysis

Here's my angry missive to NPR for a segment of their debate coverage:

Your analysis of the YouTube debate on Morning Edition July 24 left listeners with a very serious misunderstanding of what actually happened.

Talking to Steve Inskeep, commentator James Kotecki said he thought it was great that they had the Reverend Reggie Longcrier in the audience for a follow-up to see if Senator Edwards had actually answered the question. The Rev. Longcrier said "Not like I would have liked to have heard it."

When pressed for why the answer had been inadequate, he said he wasn't really paying attention.

HE ADMITTED HE DIDN'T HEAR THE ANSWER.

"I didn't quite get some, some people were moving around and I didn't get all of his answer."

Watch it for yourself:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x_jpGUl7IBA


When you put a guy barely out of college in front of a national audience to analyze a presidential debate (and I understand why you did it given the format of this candidates' forum), you owe it to us to make sure he's got the facts straight. When he doesn't it's the host's job to set the record straight.

As a longtime listener I expect more of NPR.

Their response (at least they did respond) was one of those non-apology acknowledgments, "I'm sorry if you were offended..."

Thank you for contacting NPR's Morning Edition.

We regret that our programming has not met your expectations. We strive to offer the highest quality of news and information available.

Listener feedback helps us to accomplish this goal.We welcome praise, as well as criticism, and your thoughts will be taken into consideration.

Thank you for listening to Morning Edition, and for your continued support of public broadcasting. For the latest news and information, visit NPR.org.

Sincerely,
Alan
NPR Services
(in a bold move, he included his phone number, which I have edited out here)

My Tube Is You Tube

Finally finished watching the YouTube democratic candidates debate. Resisted absorbing any analysis previously because I was trying to form my own opinions.

Hillary looks very solid, although I noticed she mentioned being First Lady at least twice, which I never saw her do before, just talking about being a Senator and what she did policy wise in the Clinton administration. Conventional wisdom says her strategy is based on not screwing up and projecting competence, which would be a big improvement over the current occupant of the White House. But I think after all of W's blunders, many voters also are hungry for meaningful change and in this respect she seems like a nostalgia candidate.

Electing a black guy would be an enormous change for a country that's been plagued by race for centuries but I really wonder whether John Q. Redstate is willing to vote for a brother, despite what he tells Gallup when they call. He also still seems to lack the depth of experience that I think we need now. Not that he's not smart enough to figure it out, but the presidency should not entail too much on the job training.

He's been tricked into making a tactical mistake a couple of times in the debates when he was the first to answer a loaded question. Most recently on his willingness to commit to meeting with America bashing world leaders from North Korean, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba--- He said yes, we need to talk to everyone unlike the Bush Administration which only holds meetings with lap dogs. Hillary (and later Edwards in a thinly veiled "me too") said we need to proceed more cautiously so the American president doesn't become a propaganda tool during a meeting that accomplishes nothing. The other time on how he would respond to a terrorist attack. Maureen Dowd doesn't call him Obambi for nothing.

I think Edwards could be a great president. He's one of the few candidates I've seen that actually seems to understand the life most people live and the challenges they face. And he's on the record with detailed proposals to address major issues like health care and how to restore our shattered credibility in the international community.

Unfortunately, even at this early stage he's starting to appear a bit desperate, ramping up his rhetoric to an increasingly combative level. I also bet he wishes he could take back the crack about Hillary's outfit and steal Biden'a comment that the question was "a ridiculous exercise."

Now it's time to get Gravel and Kucinich off the stage. They don't offer enough in terms of raising fringe issues or provide sufficient entertainment value to be worth wasting time we could spend hearing from the real players.

Looks like Richardson is running for VP, not charming enough to upstage the top of the ticket but he's got the great resume and represents a less threatening change than having someone black or female as a running mate. Maybe we'll get a Linconesque Team of Rivals deal with Joe Biden as Secretary of State and Dodd somewhere else in the cabinet.

Now it's safe to read what the inside the beltway know-it-alls have to say about this....