CNN’s Candy Crowley has always seemed like a tough, sharp and relatively fair reporter. So when she said earlier this week she was going to take an active moderator role in last night’s debate, that didn’t immediately seem like a bad thing. There’s no problem with an impartial moderator keeping the candidates on topic and pressing them with follow-ups.
But by the end of the night, it was clear Crowley had done damage to her own reputation of objectivity. It wasn’t just because of the Benghazi question, either. Matt Latimer lays out the instances of bias at the Daily Beast:
By far the biggest loser of the debate (after my former boss, George W., that is) was Candy Crowley. She is one of the most seasoned political reporters in Washington, but she came very close to becoming a participant in the debate. At some points she almost lost control, then seemed to interrupt Romney more often than Obama. The president also was given more time to speak overall. Ms. Crowley’s decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya, however, will go into the Republican Party’s media-bias file for decades to come. Enjoy that moment—you’ll be seeing it again and again for years.
As Jim Lindgren noted, Obama was also given the last word on nearly two-thirds of the questions — and not for Romney’s lack of trying.
That’s not to say Romney would have done any better (or Obama any worse) if Crowley hadn’t played an active role in the debate. Both candidates came off fine, with Democrats calling the game for Obama, and Republicans calling it for Romney. In the end, it was a small win for Obama. That was Romney’s fault for being unprepared to discuss Benghazi, and Crowley is in no way responsible.
But Crowley hurt herself by jumping to Obama’s defense on an arguable point. When Obama followed up with “Say that again, Candy” and the audience of “undecided voters” cheered, the image was a moderator and the president ganging up on the Republican candidate. What’s more, the moderator didn’t even have her facts right. As WaPo fact-checker Glenn Kessler explains why the issue is not as cut-and-dried as Crowley claimed:
What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation,” he said.
But he did not say “terrorism”—and it took the administration days to concede that that it an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad.
Whether it was due to personal bias or incomplete information, Crowley was wrong. She had no business intervening on an ambiguous point, and as a long-time journalist, she should have been more careful.
1.Crowley is also the one who picked out the questions. With one notable exception ( Libya) all the questions had a liberal premise. n n2. There is evidence to suggest that some of the questioners were Democratic plants. For example, one questioner may have been a member of Code Pink. It is known that nearly everyone in the audience voted for Obama in the last election. n n3. Obama spoke for 4 minutes and 18 seconds longer than Romney, giving him 11 percent more talking time. Crowley is directly responsible for that imbalance as well. n n4. Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times vs.9 times for Obama. n n5. Libya: No need to repeat what has been said. n nIn the future, no Republican candidate should agree to participate in any Presidential debate unless Fox news is allowed to moderate at least one the debates.
Sort of agree with last sentence with a couple of qualifications: the moderators also could not be, any of them, tv hacks and flacks; and you can bet a Fox moderator, say Brett Baier, would play it so down the middle, being the really exemplary pro he is. He'd be just a great moderator.
nThis debate was a joke and it basically proved that the Liberal Main Stream Media is trying to control the message in this debate. The comment by Crowely about the terror attack on 9/11 was horrible slip up and was unacceptable and she should be sanctioned and never allowed to moderate a presidential debate again.
Already Sharpton and Co are mad that only one person was black.
IRT last paragraph, not just one debate but Fox News should moderate all debates until such time as the rest of the media receive a flash message from above and they start reporting from a more neutral position.
I think that is a great idea.
How did Crowley just happened to have the transcript of the just the right speech? n nWho put it in her hands? n nHow did Obama know that she had it in her hand? n nHow was it that Crowley was instantly ready to respond? n
I am sure the Obama administration did or one of the hacks that is in his campaign.
Can you spell "R-E-H-E-A-R-S-E-D?" This whole scene was more phony than a clinton fund raiser.
There is a small coffee and beer house in a not too great part of town here. They really need a dishwasher in the back. Pay is small. Hours long. I'm not sure Candy qualifies, but she could apply.
I think she might scoff the pastries when no one was looking . . . n nBut seriously, the real loser of the debate, if it contributes to Romney's defeat, is America.
The willingness of accomplished females like Clinton and Crowley to throw their careers under the bus for Obama is amazing. Must be his aftershave. It sure as hell can't be his intellect or character. Kraftt Ebing might have had something to say on the subject.
She didn’t do it for Obama. She did it for George Soros with whom she had an ideological relationship and a wallet full of his money.
Crowley simply abandoned the questions at one point and began peppering Obama with his own talking points one on one, while periodically shouting Romney down. It was like watching a segment on MSNBC where the host, a White House staffer, an MSNBC 'analyst' and a DNC lobbyist all ask each other 'questions where the only answer is 'of course!!!!'
Poor Candy, boo hook hook. Poor Mittens, sob, sob. Poor dumb Nazi monkey Brett Bauer, a real pro's pro. Poor scarface Greta. Poor Hannity, poor America rejecting Mittens and Munster. Poor Bibi, wawawa.
Criminal no I don't think so but unethical and deceitful yes. In another time when the media took no sides and strictly reported the news her kind of action would have been roundly criticized and her career down the tubes. She will get some criticism but her career will not suffer much if at all.
"She will get some criticism but her career will not suffer much if at all." n nMan – her career would be OVER If I were her employer. She'd be pushing a nshopping cart between strip-mall dumpsters right now – all the while shouting "Love for Sale!". n nUnfortunately, though, incestuous Big Media protects their own. So – you're right.
The only unbiased person on CNN panel was David Gergen. Probably his score for the candidates was 52/48 or 51/49 in favor of O but he would have conceded that there had been interference in favor of the Pr. Argument-wise it was a Romney win.
Is there anybody else that after listening and watching the ONE's speech patterns and facial mannerisms came away with a nasty case of peptic distress?
Obama's answer, that he called the Benghazi attack "terror", reminded me of Richard Nixon's claim that he had called the Watergate cover-up "wrong". In one of the oval office tapes, he used the word, but he was referring to the procedure for his operatives to get the money they thought they needed to pay off Howard Hunt so he would not snitch; not that the cover-up itself was wrong!
And all this time I thought it was "all Obama's fault"?
Candy Crowley's "performance" ended all doubt as to the abysmal dishonesty of the "mainstream press." n nWe know what they did by distorting Obama's identity and political record. But there's another story that's just as horrific, and which affected me personally. For years I hated Ronald Reagan. I recall saying to my then-wife "I've been depressed during the 1980s, thanks to this guy!" Only years later did I learn what a magnificent, if flawed (like everyone else), human being Reagan was. n nWhy did I ever think otherwise? Simple: NPR, PBS, the NYT, etc. With a steady diet of that miserable, distorting gruel, who wouldn't have been "depressed" by Ronald Reagan? I recall the truly horrific Susan Stamberg (sp?) characterizing Reagan as a fanatical rightwinger—and stupid. n nToday it's Obama, then it was Reagan, and before him it was—Eisenhower, whom they also called "stupid," despite his having successfully led the Allied assault on Fortress Germany and beyond. Ike's memoirs tell a far different story than "stupid." He was an insightful, brilliant, decent man who overwhelmed America with his clear and hopeful presence. And this the Left found "stupid."
Candy Crowley is now pond scum.
This hairsplitting is pointless. n nObama said act of terror. n nHe did not say act of terrorism n nIs there a terribly material difference here?
I didn't even bother watching the charade as I pretty much knew how it would play. n nThe media is in the same situation that European Royalty was early in the last century, their thrones are collapsing and they know that this is the last election in which they will have any relevance whatsoever.
At first I thought I was watching The View, then I reallised Whoopie's hair was much too short.
I'm still honked off she told Romney to sit down. The arrogance! Can you imagine her telling Obama that?
I think it was a mistake quye staff. He could not separate the role of facilitator in the role of a journalist but rather he won the role of journalist.