Two politicians actually debating on current issues, exchanging ideas and not attacks. You could think that this is a rare enough event that the media would actually report and comment on it.
Two main points in this debate:
-
Gingrich admitting the Inhoffe was wrong and that global warming was man-made and dangerous- Granted: Inhoffe is probably the last dinosaur not to believe in global warming, but I guess there has to be a last dinosaur in every crisis - However I wonder how many times the media would have played a scene where Kerry states Boxer is wrong!).
-
a clear presentation of two different visions of how to solve the crisis: the "laisser-faire" conservative philosophy held by Newt (give us lofty tax breaks and the market will take care of it, which is I guess the philosophy that led to the Great Depression), and the more classically progressive vision presented by Kerry (the government needs to set the standards and the right incentives, then the market will take care of it, probably closer to the New Deal philosophy).
So, how did the media report on that:
As far as I could see, Most cable and broadcast TV channels did not. No 30 seconds soundbytes, I guess, that they could have inserted... Or, may be Larry Berkhead being the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby and the nth clip on Don Imus was more important. One exception was Blitzer, whose coverage was nearly irrelevant to the issue.
The print media seem to have been more receptive to the event. AP had his own report, which was reproduced by most papers, starting by the Herald"
Kerry, Gingrich debate global warming.
The worse came with an absolutely inept article in the Washington Post written by no other than Dana Milbank:
Kerry and Gingrich Hugging Trees -- and (Almost) Each Other - No comment, there is another thread about it.
Some other papers decided to all have their reporting:
The LATimes:
Kerry, Gingrich agree on global warming, disagree on solutions The Chicago Tribune :
Warmth prevails at climate debate - Gingrich, Kerry spar on how to fix problem (which spends more time talking about the supposed inadequacies of the speakers than about the debate by itself)
The Boston Globle, which surprisingly, titled on Gingritch:
Gingrich drops skepticism on global warmingThe Denver Post Wire Services:
http://currentargus.com/ci_5637359">Kerry and Gingrich debate remedy for global warming
The best surprisingly comes from the
McClatchy media (even though envelopped by a lot of snark), which recognizes that such a debate on ideas is fairly rare these days:
But in fairness, both brought to the debate - sponsored by New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress - attributes that typically aren't seen in the slick recitation of party-sponsored talking points that generally passes for debate in Washington, D.C:
-Ideas buttressed by facts.
- A willingness to recognize the limitations of rigid ideologies.
- An interest in listening as well as speaking.
- Quick wits and quicker minds.
And the Washington Times has, comparatively to the rest of the media, a comparatively good reporting
Gingrich, Kerry debate fix for climate changeConclusion: the media complain there is no ideas debate among pols anymore, but, when there is one, they do not recognize it and spend half of their reporting on unrelated facts.
Bloggers reported too:Bill Scher, from
Liberal Oasis and
Common Sense, largely focused on Gingrich's take on the issue, but granted some praise on Kerry's framing of the question.
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/newt_tries_shift_global_warming_debate
...
Newt also derided a firm cap on carbon emissions as a “bureaucracy and litigation” strategy. Kerry quickly rejected the false frame, noting that the same claims were lobbed at sulfur dioxide caps, and were proven wrong.
Kerry rightly noted that without our government to “set a standard,” and put a price on carbon pollution, we won’t get the job done:
The major CEOs … say they need the cap set, in order to give the marketplace the certitude and the incentive, for people to put the money in, and have a long-term capital investment that’s worthwhile.
...
Blue Climate has its take also:
http://www.blueclimate.com/blueclimate/2007/04/the_john_kerryn.html
This debate was one of the more enjoyable ones on this subject that I have seen. It was made that way in large part because Kerry and Gingrich did not spend time with pointless arguments over whether global warming was occuring and whether it was caused by humans. As one would expect, John Kerry made the case that climate change science is in and that it is urgent that we address the problem. In fact, the urgency of the issue was a point he repeatedly returned to. More surprising was Newt Gingrich's general agreement with Kerry on state of the science. In fact, when John Kerry asked him what Gingrich would say to skeptics like Senator Inhofe, Gingrich said that the science is well enough established that we should accept it.
The major disagreement between them was about the fastest way to solve the climate change problem. I will discuss that below but first it was also evident that, despite the fact that both Kerry and Gingrich accept the science, they have different starting points when discussing solutions.
...
As did
Grist, focusing on Gingrich's change of mind on the issue:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/10/114741/704
John Kerry and Newt Gingrich squared off on climate change this morning. The result? Gingrich committed to the statement that something needs to be done and distanced himself from partisan brethren like Inhofe. He also dropped a line about a need for some "green conservatism."
...
And we have all seen the reports by Think Progress, with Gingritch agreeing that Inhoffe is wrong.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe/
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
