Ted Koppel - An apology for his behavior

[keopeli]

I'm not sure what Mr. Koppel's motives were tonight, though I tend to believe him. The last I heard, he was fighting for his job so that we would be spared another mindless comedy job in his time slot. I also have heard some of his shows and I believe that he is a very qualified journalist. As he is an expert in this field, I tend to trust his motives.

As such, I think he was doing the Democrats a big favor by launching them off of the dry case studies and 'speechifying' that have made up all of the debates to date. We can use this opportunity to our advantage, or lose the momentum altogether.

Now, the point of debates is that you get a good moderator and have a healthy exchange. The moderator is there, not to ask you the questions that you want to be asked, but to stir the conversation to the benefit of the audience. If that means questions about PCs and MACs, then that's what it means.

If we accept this graciously with humorous protests like Kucinich's snap back at Mr. Koppel, we will begin to control the debate format.

If, however, we protest and insist on only the kind of questions that we approve of, it would open the door for Bush* to do the exact same thing. We saw Arnold do this in California. To control the debates, we must insist that the questions be unlimited as well as somewhat spontaneous. Any less will be at our own expense, because if Bush* gets to control the rules, well...Maybe a secret nighttime debate at Baghdad International would be cool, guns and all!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50994-2003Dec9?language=printer

edit: add link

[keopeli]

1. Another point I agree with from a previous thread

I also agree with a poster on this point from another thread.

"My complaint is these "tactics" are never used with bush...perhaps if we had a "probing media" we wouldn't be in such a mess. Let's see Koppel interview * in the same way."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=262117

My hope is that Mr. Koppel will get the chance to do exactly that. A man this skilled at moderating major televised debates would have a fieldday with Bush*. This is another affirmation that I believe Mr. Koppel is working to the best interest of the parties involved, without animosity.

Again, my thoughts are not more than instinctual, but the facts of Mr. Koppel's extensive career (see note) illuminate any opinion we may have formed of the man.

note: It's ironic that Mr. Koppel's career started with the Iranian Hostage Crisis and now seems to be peaking in the face of the manifestations of that same problem, at least as it's related to our relations with Iraq.

[xJlM]

3. You're dreaming

Ted Koppel proved himself as a chump last night, and secured my knowlege that the US media is a joke (which has been a long established principle with me, anyway).

[jpgpenn]

2. Koppel has nothing to appoligize for

[phillybri]

5. Care to expound as to why?

n/t

[jpgpenn]

7. well for starters

Did you also request Woodruff, Gwynn Iffle and that pencilneck from FAUX also appoligize. Those 2 other debates I mentioned were a heck of alot worse then lasts nights.

DK spoke out from the beginning about what the context of the debate should be. This debate was more constructive then the majority of the others I have watched.

[greyl]

4. Bullfrigginshit. nt

[drfemoe]

6. And the audience cheered

when the candidates refused to accept the the moderator's definition of what is "interesting".

to stir the conversation to the benefit of the audience.