The Republican’s felt that many of the important questions referring to the country's future that were asked in the democratic party debate were eluded. GOP candidate Ben Carson was among those disappointed with CNBC and expressed his concerns saying, “We need a change of format. Debates are supposed to be to 'get to know the candidates,' what is behind them. What it has turned into is a gotcha." Another Candidate who found the questions frustrating was Carly Fiorina who was repeatedly bombarded with questions about remarks she made previously about planned parenthood. After the debate she criticized the “liberal media” for their lack of questions geared to address the more posing issues a president elect might face. Brian Steel, CNBC's senior vice president for public relations, later responded to complaints from the Republican party standing by the moderators' performance saying, "People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions." The Republicans were furious claiming that the moderators intentionally gave them “useless” questions, while the Democrats were given questions more relevant to the major issues during their debate. To address their concerns, the Republican’s have decided to abandon CNBC and have scheduled their next debate to be hosted by Fox Business on November 10th.
Were the CNBC moderators within their bounds to ask questions that focused primarily on the personal issues of candidates, placing them in difficult situations? Was it ok for the Republicans to lash out against the moderators for eluding the important questions asked during the Democratic party’s debate? Is the GOP’s action to leave CNBC for Fox business in the next debate justifiable? Did the political bias of CNBC have anything to do with the entire ordeal?
I didn't watch the debate (I will watch one in January), but the consensus is that CNBC did not do well. Too many moderators & too many interruptions. However, the real question should be what were the pertinent statements made by the candidates? One moderator dismissed Trump's tax plan as being as likely to work as his arms would be likely to produce flight. Trump that!
ReplyDeleteI believe that CNBC did not do a good job because they interfered with the debate too much. They asked questions that weren't very relevant to the presidency and did not allow the candidates to give fair replies. It is justifiable for the GOP to go to Fox News because not only will they be able to rest assured that they will be asked fair questions, but also the majority of GOP supporters watch Fox News anyways.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Luke. The Candidates should be asked questions that are politically tough, and not questions that are designed to highlight personal flaws of the candidates. I think they were justified in leaving CNBC. If CNBC is not able to do a good job, then the Republicans deserve to switch and receive a more fair debate.
DeleteI agree with Luke. The Candidates should be asked questions that are politically tough, and not questions that are designed to highlight personal flaws of the candidates. I think they were justified in leaving CNBC. If CNBC is not able to do a good job, then the Republicans deserve to switch and receive a more fair debate.
DeleteIt is true that politicians should be prepared to answer "tough questions," as Brian Steel put it. These questions, however, should at least be relevant to the political topics at hand. Politics, in many ways, has become more about personally attacking candidates than weighing the value of their political ideas. The debate, like Drew said, should have been focused on candidates' perspectives on controversial issues, not their personal lives. If the CNBC is unable to encourage this kind of debate, the Republicans have the right to change their host to someone who will place the emphasis back on politics and the future of our nation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the questions the Republicans answered should have at least been political in nature. The purpose of the debates is not to familiarize the public with each candidate personally, but their agendas when assuming the presidency. However, I do think that sometimes personal questions are appropriate when they have an inherent connection to a political issues or agenda. The Republicans were right in leaving CNBC due to the highly personal and useless questions they were asked. However, it may reflect badly upon the Republicans because a strong speaker could have answered the personal question curtly while diverting attention to an important policy.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I do agree that both the Republicans and the Democrats should be asked similar questions, mainly regarding politics and economics. However, the Republicans should look at this as a wake up call, that many Americans find them laughable and do not relate to them as much as the Democrats. The Republicans are allowed to voice their opinion, but they should be more respectful about it, so they don't look even worse than they already do.
ReplyDeletePartisan politics aside, debates shouldn't be a place to "jump" candidates with strangely worded questions or ones with no relation to the campaign trail. Debates should be for getting to know how different candidates differ on certain issues so the American voters can see their prospective presidents in a new light, and quite frankly the recent Republican debates have been more show, less politics.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems as if some of the questions may have been unfair and too personal, questions about candidates previous statements seems completely warranted, like the questions that were directed toward Fiorina. The republicans had the right to complain, but they do need to be prepared to deal with every type of question as president, even if it does seem unfair. However, I think they had the right to move to Fox. These debates are their main chance to get people on their side, and they have a right to the best possible chances of success.
ReplyDeleteThe CNBC moderators were within their rightful bounds in regards to their questioning, and obviously political bias was very much present. How relevant to the debate these questions actually were is another story altogether, but that did not give the Republicans a right to lash out at the moderators. Had the Republicans wanted a policy focused debate, they should have specified that to CNBC beforehand, especially in context of the fact that it is a more liberal network, and so they should have been prepared for such a situation.
ReplyDeleteThe CNBC moderators may have pushed their rightful bounds a little too far. It's one thing to ask the candidates personal questions about what they've said in the past, but it's completely different if the moderators focus solely on the personal questions. Additionally, it's especially unfair when compared to the democratic debate and makes the political bias extremely apparent. The GOP's action to leave CNBC for Fox Business in the next debate is justifiable. The candidates deserve to be asked questions that are politically hard in order to express their more relevant views to the public, and there's no guarantee that CNBC will ask them more relevant questions in the next debate.
ReplyDeleteI think that the CNBC moderators were within their bounds to ask the questions they did, because as presidential candidates, they should be able to answer any questions they are given. However, I do think that the moderators could have varied their questions more and brought up more questions on the bigger issues. It was not okay for Republicans to lash out at the moderators, because they should be able to handle any questions that are thrown at them. There are going to be many more questions and issues that they may not like if they eventually become president, so this temper-tantrum-like reaction is not justifiable. Changing networks from CNBC to Fox Business news is a continuation of their unprofessionalism. Instead of changing moderators, the candidates should be able to deal with the questions they are asked like the professionals they are supposed to be. The political bias of CNBC may have had somewhat to do with their questioning, but that should not make it any harder for the Republicans if they are apt candidates.
ReplyDeleteI think that the candidate should be asked questions about their policies and not personal or unprofessional questions. It is unfair that the Democratic debates are taken more seriously and those candidates are asked professional questions on their own policies. They did have the right to move to FOX because they should not be asked only personal questions.
ReplyDeleteI think CNBC has a point when they say that candidates should be able to answer difficult questions, especially with regards to their platforms or things they've said in the past. However, it was clear that the moderators were favoring Democrats with less personal questions, which is not how debates should be. As much as I hate to say it, Carson was actually right in what he said about how debates should be and CNBC should have been more fair in their questioning. Political biases dictates how media portrays candidates and the GOP's move to FOX is valid, but is likely to have the same problem as CNBC had.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the future President should be able to answer tough questions, but the issue isn't that the questions were tough: it's that many of them were dumb and irrelevant. Instead of focusing on important issues that the voters care about, they tried to start fights between the candidates in order to get people talking about the debate and give CNBC more ratings/attention. I definitely believe they were doing this to make the Republican candidates look bad, and I also believe that the people who think CNBC was in their bounds would have a different opinion if it were the Democrats instead of the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans do have a point in regards to the standards of the questions being asked in each respective party's debates, however they should not be so close minded about the questions being asked either. While the debate moderators did ask questions mostly pertaining to their personal life rather than how they will be in office, the president right now also deals with these same questions. It is up to the moderators on which questions should or should not be asked, however it is noted that they should ask more questions on how each candidate will be during their time in office rather than produce an ad hominem towards each of them.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable for the moderators to ask personal questions on candidates past comments or stances, as these are questions that the American public may be wondering. However, focus should also be placed on candidate policies and ideas. It is reasonable that the republicans lash out so as to voice their concerns in hopes that a future debate will be facilitated in a more favorable manner. FOX will likely facilitate a debate that is too favorable to the republicans as they are known for being a conservative network.
ReplyDelete