Should Candy Crowley be penalized for Presidential Debate Misconduct

By | October 22, 2012

CNN’s Candy Crowley breaks moderator rules to rule incorrectly for President Obama in second presidential debate

With the continuing furor erupting concerning the highly partisan nature displayed by Candy Crowley during the second presidential debate the real question has evaded the American voter. Who is truly responsible for acts of journalistic misconduct and what should be done when a debate moderator decides to go rogue, as Crowley did in favoring Obama?

The Commission on Presidential Debates is the organization which sponsors the presidential and vice presidential debates and it claims that these debates will be conducted in “a professional and nonpartisan manner.”

Presidential Debate Commission Rules:

“ (c) With respect to all questions…
(iv) The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits,”

Crowley deliberately and intentionally broke the agreed upon rules, and decided as Obama has decided during the course of his administration, that rules don’t apply and the ends justify the means.

So, what recourse do the American people have when a journalist is selected who openly ignores the rules in conducting the debate and in comments leading up to the debate? What happens when the journalist moderator interjects herself into the debate, in order to blunt a candidate’s momentum, as Crowley did to republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney?

The easy answer is to say; simply that Republicans and GOP candidates who are the favorite targets of biased coverage in the mainstream media should just grit their teeth and bare it. But that is not what the American public needs to see or should have to endure. If a presidential debate commission purports to field “unbiased reporters” who are going to be fair and balanced moderators, then failing to do so should result in a penalty, and or permanent suspension of the reporter and their affiliated network from future participation in debates.

According to the national Verified Voting Foundation, in 2012 there are approximately 180,802,372 registered voters in America. Voters are entitled to see a debate that is free from a moderator who appears to purposely steer a debate, to benefit the incumbent President Obama. Crowley’s behavior becomes even more suspect when one considers that Obama was increasingly losing ground to the republican challenger Mitt Romney.

Did CNN senior political reporter Candace Crowley conduct herself in a professional and nonpartisan manner? Examine her earlier statement, when she announced that she would evade and ignore the professional rules of journalistic conduct, and inject herself into the presidential debate if and when she saw fit. So one has to question, who judges the moderators when moderators declare that they are above the rules as Crowley did?

Examine the facts and you be the judge.

During the course of the 90-minute debate, Crowley allowed Obama to misuse the debate clock as if it was his own private football game. Instead of being fair and balanced, the clearly partisan Crowley allowed Obama 42 minutes and 40 seconds to make his points, while penalizing Romney constantly, with 28 interruptions. Her constant disruptions appeared to attempt to break Romney’s concentration and debate pace, leaving him at a deficit with 38 minutes and 14 seconds.

Crowley even allowed applause during the debate when Obama made debate points, against her own moderator rules she announced before the debate. In fact, at one point, when Michelle Obama and other Obama supporters in the audience applauded, she issued no warnings of any kind.

Again, the question has to be, where is the enforcement mechanism when a debate moderator decides to go rouge? Are 180 million plus voters simply shackled to a system where a Presidential Debate Commission remains silent when one of its selected moderators openly and brazenly announces, she will not stick by the rules?

It’s possible that the American people can supply the answer. Just as Congress has allowed taxpayers to devote a $1 to offset presidential funding of campaigns, perhaps a dime, per taxpayer can be donated to offset paying for fair and balanced debates. Open up the moderating of the debates to regional journalists as well as “Joe the Plumber” type everyday people to tag-team with journalist moderators.

If a moderator like a Crowley goes off of the reservation by announcing as Crowley did that she would make her own rules of engagement, then replace her right on the spot. The network or news organization that the moderator is affiliated with would be penalized for one election cycle by disallowing its reporters from participation in presidential primary or general election debates.

American voters deserve better than to have their vote and the nation’s future steered and diverted by bias purposeful conduct. Perhaps Crowley was hoping that she could pump some energy into staving off the plummeting viewership at CNN, where her network has suffered a reported 42 percent drop in the past year. CNN is hemorrhaging severe viewership loss, according to a measurement taken in June, which found that its daily ratings were at their lowest in over a decade.

Well, Candy, it did not work. The attempt to shut down Romney’s message of economic recovery and job creation got pass her maneuvering. The proof is in the snap polls conducted by Crowley’s own network, where registered voters who were polled gave Romney high marks in several key domestic areas.

The CNN poll gave Romney higher ratings, in who would handle the economy better with his 58% over Obama’s 40%. Romney also topped the president with a 59 % rating on the question of who would handle the escalating annual trillion dollar deficits, to Obama’s anemic 36 %. Romney even beat Obama when debate viewers gave Romney a 51% compared to Obama’s 44 % when it came to who would handle taxes better.

So in this instance, the viewers decided that despite Crowley’s attempt to rig the debate, America and it viewers were not biting. Yet, the reality of future debates and future moderators has to be dealt with seriously and openly. While CNN’s brass has already issued a statement stressing they would stand behind Crowley’s conduct, American voters do not have to.

The Presidential Debate Commission has to either end this gentlemen’s agreement to look the other way when moderators avoid or refuse to enforce the rules in a professional and nonpartisan manner, or be replaced by a system that is fair, balanced and unafraid.

After all, American voters deserve to hear an open fair debate or perhaps voters will create their own. In 2009 the Tea Party Patriots did it in waking up America to a new and more vibrant political movement. In 2012, perhaps Crowley’s misconduct is just the right act that tips the scale. America is ready; to be unshackled from liberal media moderator misconduct and candidate intimidation.

Let the Patriot Debates Movement begin.

Let me know what you think: ( Click )

Category: 2012 Election News exposing Obama Opinion Politics Tags: , , , ,

About Kevin Fobbs

Kevin Fobbs is the former Community Concerns columnist for 12 years with The Detroit News covering community, family relations, domestic abuse, education, government relations, education, and dispute resolution. He has written for "Michigan Chronicle," “GOPUSA”, Fobbs was government and civic affairs director for SoulSource, a Christian news magazine, and host of The Kevin Fobbs Show www.kevinfobbs.com. He has written as the Christian and Culture examiner for Ann Arbor Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/x-33782-Ann-Arbor-Christianity--Culture-Examiner, and Ann Arbor and Cleveland Conservative Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-ann-arbor/kevin-fobbs His weekly faith-based Hearken The Watchmen column provides insight and answers on family, faith, and how to arrive at faith-based solutions to life challenges. His e-How articles range from, legal, health and education to electronic and culture and entertainment as well as home and business. Served 12 year as a gubernatorial appointee for Michigan’s Wayne County Social Services Board. He worked primarily on parenting and early childhood educational policy, domestic violence, family and children protection policy concerns. Developed programs to help parents develop healthy coping skills in the raising of their children. Was extensively involved in developing parental and child, family support networks at the local, county, and federal level. Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, writer, and national lecturer. He has been in the forefront of communications initiatives; devised and implemented strategies to win political and public support for client public policy issues and positions; directed electoral campaigns; and spearheaded as well as managed state and regional referendum, electoral, White House Initiatives, including Education, Social Security, Welfare Reform. Faith-Based Initiatives and many others. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries. The American – Canadian Conservative Coalition (AC3) is a joint effort by grassroots Americans and Canadians to share information, issues, and policies that affect us individually and jointly. AC3 members are politically conservative and share the ideals of self-sufficiency, fair business competition, strong families, and joint homeland security. Above all, we believe in the right to freely exercise our chosen religion based on the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law outlined in the founding documents of our country.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

One thought on “Should Candy Crowley be penalized for Presidential Debate Misconduct

  1. janbrown

    Was she wrong? You bet she was! Punish her only if the rest of these talking media heads are! Leher was ineffectual the 1st round & Schiefer won’t do any better…perhaps the GOP involved in ‘allowing’ these modertors should at least get a writst slap for not insisting on a ‘qualified, non media person for at least one meting. Greta VanSuskind said she thought it worrked FOR Romney because it was such a blatant move & that could well be right

Comments are closed.