The last Democratic Debate, hosted by MSNBC and the Washington Post, highlighted many despicable facets of the media’s approach to unbiased questioning. Beginning with the sponsors and panelists, we can already see a damning representation of questions the American people are interested in having answered. Rachel Maddow opened the debate with questions on impeachment, an irrelevant pathos-dump for the viewers that await Trump’s dismissal with white knuckles. On top of this, the question was only directed at five of the top-tier candidates before rotating back to Elizabeth Warren, ignoring the other candidates on stage. This blatant omission is anything but an accident.
Following the dismal opening, the panel continued to lob underhanded and pathos steeped questions at Warren, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris and Peter Buttigieg, who provided family-friendly nothingburger answers consistently through the two hour run time.
In an exchange with Congresswoman Gabbard, Buttigieg revealed that he has no foreign policy plan outlined. Instead, he is opting to prostitute himself to any foreign diplomat that the Department of Defense points him towards, rejecting the idea of meeting and brokering peace with oppressive dictators. Buttigieg also shamefully dodged a question as to whether or not he would decrease military spending, signifying that he would indeed allow the DOD to conduct their own bidding.
Former Vice President Biden continued to trip and choke on his words, straying further and further from the sharp character we saw at the side of President Barack Obama for eight years. His corporate democratic donors continue to bolster the strawman polls and secure older democratic voters.
Senator Warren continues to rip the campaign promises of Senator Sanders, yet fails to describe the financial legwork that will come with these socialized plans. Her stage presence is disturbingly rehearsed, yet effective and polished enough to hit home runs with her overly anti-Trump rhetoric — perhaps the lowest hanging fruit to be plucked. As one could expect, it works like a charm. Don’t let this distract you from the fact that she is using corporate donations collected from her 2018 senate campaign to fund her “grassroots” backing. It’s as horrifying as it is hilarious.
Harris and Klobuchar are picking up on Warren’s habits, using each minute of speaking time to talk out “getting this president out of office,” keeping their eyes glued to Hillary Clinton’s failed playbook from 2016.
Finally, the plight of the underprivileged candidates. Andrew Yang has yet to receive a serious look from any moderator or candidate around him, has yet to be delegated an appropriate amount of speaking time, and does not receive questions that play to his advantage. The same could be said of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is constantly hit with kneecapping questions meant to frame her as a Russian asset — the democrats’ favorite mean term to throw at a bold anti-war candidate.
We all know that the debates are lopsided and frustrating to watch; that’s why many of us don’t watch them. For most Americans, this is how they are introduced to candidates. Shouldn’t we see these public servants through a clear frame rather than one driven by the military industrial complex and their mouthpieces at MSNBC? We can only pray they get it right the next time.
CJ Fudala is a fourth-year student majoring in English writing and minoring in journalism. CF895983@wcupa.edu.