Okay, let's not over-react.

Broadcast news has been dead for a long time.

Not the last spasm but surely another brown streak in the bowl.

More evidence that it simply sucks and can't be trusted as some objective monolith.

Subby: Last night's Democratic debate: was it the final death spasm of broadcast news?

Uuuuuuuh, no. Any spasm you saw from the long-dead corpse of network "news" was generated by the likes of Sean Hannity sodomizing it's rotting eye-sockets.

That there would be so much time devoted to whether or not a candidate wears a farking lapel pin is as clear of an indicator as ever that they don't have any sense of what is important any more.

Salon.com would certainly hope so given the abject failure of their own business model - attempting to sell left-wing screed that you can just as easily read for free on Huff Po or in the Socialist Worker.

So, who's watching Lost tonight?

eastbaywatch: Salon.com would certainly hope so given the abject failure of their own business model - attempting to sell left-wing screed that you can just as easily read for free on Huff Po or in the Socialist Worker.

If you had to pay to read that article, you're doing it wrong. Never mind you're always doing it wrong.

ABC depends on corporate sponsors for their income. Corporate sponsors don't like it when real issues are discussed. People might get the idea that Congress is supposed to represent them, and then where would we be?

This Is Bold Text: So, who's watching Lost tonight?

Lost - is that Hillary's new nickname?

Marcus Aurelius: ABC depends on corporate sponsors for their income. Corporate sponsors don't like it when real issues are discussed. People might get the idea that Congress is supposed to represent them, and then where would we be?

That would explain all the ads for Acme Lapel Pins I saw during the commercial breaks.

American Broadcast Media, I'm embarrassed for both of us.

More like rigor mortis, it died two years ago.

This is the 10,000th farking debate. We've heard them talk about issues over and over and over and over.

This debate however somehow sticks out for some reason. People will remember it.

The YouTube debates kicked way more ass. More grassroots, relaxed, candid.

The problem is that network television sucks and panders to whomever has the most money.

I believe that during an election year there should be a couple of hours dedicated to candidates' viewpoints, offered at cut rates.

Not these stuffy postured "debates."

No but I think that if there is enough of a hubbub about that shiatfest of a spectacle that happened last night maybe, just maybe, it might mean a rebirth of American media.

/it's equally likely to me being sodomized by a unicorn by the time I'm done ty OW!

I was watching via abc's live internet video stream.

Because of that, I got to watch them rig their own final results.

They were showing their computerized "audience reaction" graph in real-time, over the net. The live network feed from the debate floor was in a little window in the upper left, and the majority of the screen was taken up with a window showing the computer graph.

Only they forgot to turn the feed off, after the debate was over.

In the graph window, a mouse pointer came on screen, and opened up the bar chart showing who had scored higher. Whoever it was, that was operating the machine, then typed new numbers into the chart, erasing the data the machine had collected, and put Hillary in the lead.

The faked bar chart was then shown on TV as the proof that Hillary had won the debate.

I've been all over the net today trying to find someone reporting it. Nobody has.

This was the first debate I've watched live this year (I have better things to spend $650 a year on than cable TV). Damn that was bad.

Why in the name of hell weren't any of these debates on PBS? Why weren't all of them? At least they'd have had the integrity not to put a key Clinton administration official in the moderators' seat for a Clinton debate.

MFL: This is the 10,000th farking debate. We've heard them talk about issues over and over and over and over.

This debate however somehow sticks out for some reason. People will remember it.

When you have supposedly respected journalists behaving like Sean Hannity (even getting some questions from him) it becomes remarkably memorable. I just isn't memorable in a way that is good for ABC News. This is definitely a Dan Rather moment for the network.

bloobeary: I was watching via abc's live internet video stream.

Because of that, I got to watch them rig their own final results.

They were showing their computerized "audience reaction" graph in real-time, over the net. The live network feed from the debate floor was in a little window in the upper left, and the majority of the screen was taken up with a window showing the computer graph.

Only they forgot to turn the feed off, after the debate was over.

In the graph window, a mouse pointer came on screen, and opened up the bar chart showing who had scored higher. Whoever it was, that was operating the machine, then typed new numbers into the chart, erasing the data the machine had collected, and put Hillary in the lead.

The faked bar chart was then shown on TV as the proof that Hillary had won the debate.

I've been all over the net today trying to find someone reporting it. Nobody has.

You should probably take the 10 seconds it takes to learn how to take screenshots. That would have been very interesting to see.

MFL: This is the 10,000th farking debate. We've heard them talk about issues over and over and over and over.

This debate however somehow sticks out for some reason. People will remember it.

Terrible moderating will do that.

d3sertion : You should probably take the 10 seconds it takes to learn how to take screenshots. That would have been very interesting to see.


The editing job took about eight seconds. I had no idea what I was seeing, until it was over. When they showed the chart on TV, I was felt like kicking myself.

Broadcast journalism is dead!

Love,

One of the first major online magazines.

Maybe I just don't get it, but why are issues voters care about "non-issues." Anybody who actually believes there is substance to any of these debates is delusional. The candidates parse and espouse populist rhetoric when they get the chance, but most of it is baloney. Hell obama even said most of what he says on the campaign trail is baloney when he appeared on The Daily Show.

What makes this all the more ridiculous is this belief that this pandering rhetoric is more important than the actions of these candidates. clinton outright lies about her Bosnia trip, admits to it and says my bad for lying please forgive me. obama freely and openly associates with people who condemn the US for building towers that got in the way of terrorist airplanes, and says who he associates with has no bearing on who he is.

Fact of the matter is, the character of the president DOES MATTER. Unfortunately we have some poor options this time around. a liar, a man who appears to hate his own country and a man with a temper.

I remember another group of enthusiatic supporters complaining about how horrible the mainstream media was. I remember them being shunned and ridiculed for saying such things.

MFL: This is the 10,000th farking debate. We've heard them talk about issues over and over and over and over.

Some late breaking real issues that weren't discussed.

Free trade with Columbia
Olympic torch protests/Tibet crackdown
Housing Crisis
Illegal immigrant business raids
New government in Russia
Zimbabwe elections
Bear Stearns bailout
Stimulus packages - present and future (like McCain's gas tax holiday)
Polygamist raid

There's at least two hours of debate material

I don't know why so many people are pissed off. The league of women voters who use to run the debates gave up because the _debaters_, made so many pitiful demands as to what questions can or cannot be asked.

If a question came up, chances are both side agreed to it. right?
To me the participants are part of the problem. Hold a debate w/o these piddly restriction. But then make everyone show up.

When the independent network news departments were shifted to the entertainment divisions, we went from Walter Cronkite telling us that's how it was to Muffy and Biff giggling about runaway brides.

MoveOn.org is circulating a petition denouncing the debate.

The votemaster at electoral vote.com had some harsh words as well.

also bloobleary if that's true, wow...

bloobeary: I was watching via abc's live internet video stream.

Because of that, I got to watch them rig their own final results.

They were showing their computerized "audience reaction" graph in real-time, over the net. The live network feed from the debate floor was in a little window in the upper left, and the majority of the screen was taken up with a window showing the computer graph.

Only they forgot to turn the feed off, after the debate was over.

In the graph window, a mouse pointer came on screen, and opened up the bar chart showing who had scored higher. Whoever it was, that was operating the machine, then typed new numbers into the chart, erasing the data the machine had collected, and put Hillary in the lead.

The faked bar chart was then shown on TV as the proof that Hillary had won the debate.

I've been all over the net today trying to find someone reporting it. Nobody has.


I did hear them talking conspiratorially for a while like "what are we going to do?" but it wasn't the window on top. By the time i switched back to it they had realized their mistake, cut it off and gone to commercial. I was like wtf??? But yea I didn't see them edit a graph and haven't seen anyone mention it on the net.

diamond2a : also bloobleary if that's true, wow...

I can not have been the only person watching the internet stream, at that point. I'm hoping that somebody had a stream recorder going.

Of course, it could be that people saw the edit, and then didn't realize the significance of it. If I hadn't seen them showing the bar chart on TV afterwards, I wouldn't have.

bloobeary: diamond2a : also bloobleary if that's true, wow...

I can not have been the only person watching the internet stream, at that point. I'm hoping that somebody had a stream recorder going.

Of course, it could be that people saw the edit, and then didn't realize the significance of it. If I hadn't seen them showing the bar chart on TV afterwards, I wouldn't have.

I hope so too, i believe you, but proof would make for some real fun...

whidbey: The YouTube debates kicked way more ass. More grassroots, relaxed, candid.

You're joking, right? The only thing the YouTube debates proved is that there's actually a group of people dumber than the idiots in charge of CNN, and that's the idiots who watch CNN. And since watching that debate automatically put me in the category of "idiot who watches CNN", I swore to better myself by never falling into that category again.

Opiate of the Lasses : I did hear them talking conspiratorially for a while like "what are we going to do?" but it wasn't the window on top. By the time i switched back to it they had realized their mistake, cut it off and gone to commercial. I was like wtf??? But yea I didn't see them edit a graph and haven't seen anyone mention it on the net.


Heh, yeah. That was actually just past the edit. When they realized the feed was still live, they went into a kind of "wild feed" thing (if you're familliar with that term) where they were cutting to random stuff. Half a weather forecast, the tail end of an interview, cut to the bit you heard/saw with the weird conversation, to a "hardball" style 2-window setup, with static in both screens, and finally back to the normal TV feed, with the commercials going.

It was like someone was in panic mode, pushing buttons to find something, anything else, to put there.

EdgeRunner: The only thing the YouTube debates proved is that there's actually a group of people dumber than the idiots in charge of CNN, and that's the idiots who watch CNN. in charge of ABC.

FTFY

bloobeary: It was like someone was in panic mode, pushing buttons to find something, anything else, to put there.

This could prove to be huge, if anyone will report on it.

No. Its been dead for quite some time. Last night a hand emerged from a rotting corpse in the ground, and gave the country one last OMG before slinking back into the grave where, with any luck, it will stay forever.

benlonghair : This could prove to be huge, if anyone will report on it.

Nobody's likely to report it without the footage. And this didn't go out over the airwaves, only over the internet stream. Getting the footage would therefore probably rely on someone out there being enough of a political debate buff, to have ripped the stream to their HD, and caught the incriminating bit of footage along with it.

I'm hoping someone caught the edit, but with nobody even mentioning it today, I have my doubts that the footage will turn up.

benlonghair: bloobeary: It was like someone was in panic mode, pushing buttons to find something, anything else, to put there.

This could prove to be huge, if anyone will report on it.

Huge? This is a total non-story. It's not like they burned a flag or showed part of a nipple or something.

I was watching the ABC internet stream last night (and continued to do so for an hour after the debate was over), and I never saw what bloobeary has described. FWIW ...

Network news was dead the second the internet started proliferating in about 1996-1998 or so. That was essentially its cancer sentence. The death was imminent, it was just that nobody really knew when.


The fact that network news has been wholly unwatchable since about that time probably expedited its death, but make no mistake, it would be dying even if the evening news from every network were emmy worthy broadcasts.


Still, I laugh at people who "watch" the news. How f'kn stupid do you have to be to do that?

The ABC debate was the worst we've had so far. It was Obama debating not only Clinton but the two moderators as well, who seemed unabashedly asking the same questions we've heard over and over with Clinton pounding Obama while professsing the questions come "from others." The obvious bias of the ABC moderators was made clear, should anyone doubt it, when they raised the business of Wiliam Ayres from the Weather Underground--when Obama was 8 years old! What was suspicious was Clinton's easy piling on about this, clearly aware that it was going to be asked. The whole Ayres thing also smacked of old-fashioned red-baiting which I though responsible journalism had disavowed some time back.

This was not a contribution to a discussion of the issues, which the nation has been requesting. Clinton's "gotcha" piling on last weekend and extending into this week and iinto the debate is being rejecting by the voters, witness the continued slide in her polling numbers.
Yes, Obama was on the defensive because the questions were so designed. It was disgusting, not helpful and only further indicated how desperate Hilary Clinton is to win at any cost.

Moses To Sandy Koufax: Network news was dead the second the internet started proliferating in about 1996-1998 or so.

It was dying before that with cable news.

They're a victim of specialization. They used to be the only game in town other than the newspaper and could bring the news to the viewers before the papers but now you can get 24 hour coverage on the cable internet and live blogging and all of that and the network news is well behind the new media on getting the news.

noazark : I was watching the ABC internet stream last night (and continued to do so for an hour after the debate was over), and I never saw what bloobeary has described. FWIW ...


Like I said, the edit took about eight seconds. If you didn't catch those eight seconds, you missed it.

Did you at least see the bit where they were flipping around randomly, or catch the bit with the weird conversation?

bloobeary: I was watching via abc's live internet video stream.

Because of that, I got to watch them rig their own final results.

They were showing their computerized "audience reaction" graph in real-time, over the net. The live network feed from the debate floor was in a little window in the upper left, and the majority of the screen was taken up with a window showing the computer graph.

Only they forgot to turn the feed off, after the debate was over.

In the graph window, a mouse pointer came on screen, and opened up the bar chart showing who had scored higher. Whoever it was, that was operating the machine, then typed new numbers into the chart, erasing the data the machine had collected, and put Hillary in the lead.

The faked bar chart was then shown on TV as the proof that Hillary had won the debate.

I've been all over the net today trying to find someone reporting it. Nobody has.

There's got to be some way to prove this. If this is actually the case it would be really interesting to see a public backlash. Although the only way that would happen is if it got reported. God damnit the state of affairs we're in today is ludicrous.

The bias of last night was astounding. Obama was hammered with at least 3 or 4 ridiculous questions where he had to spend a lot of time explaining them away. The only tough question posed to Hillary was the Bosnia one where she openly admitted to lying but wasn't pressed on it past that. On top of that one of the moderators was a freaking Clinton, Bill, Sr. adviser. And on top of that they showed Chelsea with Rendell and Nutter nearly 10 times and never focused on any big-name Obama supporters. Obama lost the debate but it could have been much worse and for that I give him props.

I think it was run over about 14 years ago by a slow moving white Bronco...

peachpicker: I think it was run over about 14 years ago by a slow moving white Bronco...

I lol'd.

Anyway, I was watching some broadcast news at the gym today. (Thankfully it was muted with the closed captioning on). What struck me was that, naturally, the MSM was missing the point. Fox, CNN, all of them.

The point really wasn't that they asked about all the "-gates" (Wright, Bitter, Ayers, Sniper, Pin). This was the first debate since Wright-gate, Bitter-gate and Sniper-gate. Naturally you'd expect some questions about them.

The point was that the FOCUS was on the "-gates." ABC lead with a few softball jabs, then went right into the "-gates." questions. They spent the FIRST HOUR on all these non-sense non-stories.

Then, almost as an after thought, they asked about the real issues.

That was the problem.

bloobeary: Like I said, the edit took about eight seconds. If you didn't catch those eight seconds, you missed it.

Youtube is blocked at work, so I can't do this, but have you tried searching through videos of the debate to see if one of them goes beyond the ending time?

This Is Bold Text: So, who's watching Lost tonight?

it's a rerun jackass

The MSM has been dead for a very long time now..the spasm you saw were the hundreds of worms and rodents running through the corpse.

fosborb : Youtube is blocked at work, so I can't do this, but have you tried searching through videos of the debate to see if one of them goes beyond the ending time?

I looked on Youtube, but all the videos there appear to show the TV broadcast, not the internet stream. At least, I haven't found one showing the internet stream.