Friday, October 1


I must comment on CNN's post-debate coverage last night. I thought it was amazingly partisan, clueless and hapless. Jeff Greenfield: "Kerry looked -- and I hate to say it -- as presidential as the president." Did he hate to say it because he didn't want it to be true? Or because it's a cliche? Wolf Blitzer looked pained and lost trying to be "fair and balanced" to Bush when the facts just weren't. Carlos Watson, both before and after the debate, was clearly trying to make happy re Bush.

Look at the Pundits Scorecard:

Paul Begala - GWB content B-, delivery C-; Kerry content A+, delivery A
Bob Novak - GWB content B, delivery B-; Kerry content D, delivery A
Carlos Watson - GWB content B+, delivery B; Kerry content B, delivery B+

You expect this from Begala and Novak -- they don't pretend to be independent. But what debate could Watson possibly have been watching, that he could score the debate a tie? Even Fox couldn't say such a thing! His credibility is completely destroyed (not that he had much left with me).

(Incidentally, the CNN audience scorecard thus far rates GWB a C in both content and delivery and awards Kerry a B for content and A- for delivery.)

I trust Fox is getting the deserved kudos for its split-screen coverage. Credit where it's due.


Post a Comment

<< Home