USA 2016 Republicans vs. the media

[Romanos]

Los Angeles (CNN)Republican presidential candidates tore into CNBC's moderators at Wednesday night's GOP debate, issuing the sharpest attacks on the mainstream media of the 2016 election cycle.

Sen. Ted Cruz accused the moderators of trying to instigate a cage match, Sen. Marco Rubio called the media a super PAC for Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump slammed the "ridiculous questions."

The candidates took to the airwaves again early Thursday morning and continued to rip CNBC for the tone and substance of the debate. And in the days ahead, sources said, campaign representatives will air their grievances to the Republican National Committee in a conference call.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/28/politics/republican-debate-media/index.html

 

[psalms 91]

If they dont like the questions then do not participate, of course the committee on Ben Gazi is reasonable after millions spent and the fact that it is the third committee to look into it. I am sure that the Republicans were not playing politics with that either.Pot calling the kettle black

 

[Josiah]

I didn't watch the democrat debate, but I have watched all the Republican ones. I DID feel the hosts were strongly on the attack (and yes, at times rude), but I can't comment on whether it was different for the Democrat debate.

I DO think the candidates rather universally turning it into an "anti-press" "anti-moderators" was in bad taste (and didn't "sit" well with me)..... Clinton is the one to turn on. It seemed a bit of a diversion and just bad debate technique.

AGAIN, I felt that Trump did poorly (I have NO CLUE why he's ahead in the polls!!!).... IMO, Bush continues to do very poorly in these debates (maybe debate is just not his strength).

Like the last, I felt that Rubio and Christi did best although Cristy didn't get much time in this third debate.

Carson did very well in the first, not so in the second, a bit better in the third. Florina I think did better this time and IMO is still "alive."


Just MY "take"




- Josiah

 

[NewCreation435]

It is part of the medias job to investigate and report what they find. Including books that candidates right. Nothing wrong with fact checking. We should investigate carefully those we put in leadership positions

 

[Highlander]

It is part of the medias job to investigate and report what they find. Including books that candidates right. Nothing wrong with fact checking. We should investigate carefully those we put in leadership positions

Yes, it is supposed to be the media's job to investigate and report. That is what I was taught in college in my journalism class.

Unfortunately, the mass media has shunned that virtue for several decades now because most of it is staffed by liberal Democrats. They sometimes investigate (as long as it is a conservative they are checking) and often make up stories and just plain lie -- which is why Dan Rather's career came to such an abrupt and stinky end.

But these same mass media types will also REFUSE to investigate fellow liberals, which is why they refused to vet Obama when he first ran for office. As a result, nobody really knew what a dangerous, unAmerican man this was and he managed to get into the Oval Office.

And now America is paying the price.