As America’s pundits and newspapers rushed to pronounce the winners and losers of Tuesday night’s 2020 Democratic presidential debate, progressives argued the event’s moderators deserve to be placed in the latter category for framing healthcare questions around insurance industry talking points, hand-wringing about “demonizing” rich people, and failing to ask a single question about the greatest existential threat facing humanity.
While they completely ignored the climate crisis, the event’s moderators — Erin Burnett and Anderson Cooper of CNN and Marc Lacey of the New York Times — managed to find time at the very end of the debate to ask a question that infuriated environmentalists who were waiting all night for the planetary emergency to take center stage.
“Last week, Ellen DeGeneres was criticized after she and former President George W. Bush were seen laughing together at a football game. Ellen defended their friendship, saying, we’re all different and I think that we’ve forgotten that that’s OK that we’re all different,” said Burnett. “So in that spirit, we’d like you to tell us about a friendship that you’ve had that would surprise us and what impact it’s had on you and your beliefs.”
The question set off a flood of outrage.
“THEY ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT ELLEN AND GEORGE BUSH BUT NOT CLIMATE CHANGE. I AM LOSING MY GODDAMN MIND,” Earther managing editor Brian Kahn tweeted. “CNN thought it was more important to use Ellen hanging out with a war criminal as a jumping off point to ask about bipartisan friendships than ask about the largest existential threat facing humanity.”
“The mainstream media’s continuing bizarre fetish for bipartisanship is the new climate denial,” Kahn added. “What an absolute joke.”
Climate researcher Leah Stokes called the lack of climate questions “complete irresponsibility.”
“Do you not understand that our house is on fire, New York Times and CNN? Do you not understand the stakes?” Stokes wrote. “Shame on you.”
Here’s how the latest 3-hour #DemDebate ended…
Ellen’s friendship with George Bush: 22 minutes
Climate crisis: 0 minutes
LGBTQ+ rights: 0 minutes
Immigration: 0 minutes
Racial justice: 0 minutes pic.twitter.com/Gll1yFdias— NowThis (@nowthisnews) October 16, 2019
The Ellen question capped off an event progressives said was dominated by corporate-friendly framing of major issues, healthcare being the most glaring example.
In one of the first questions of the night, Lacey of the Times asked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) whether she would “raise taxes on the middle class to pay for” Medicare for All.
Critics were quick to point out that a similar version of that same question has been asked in every previous debate, and on each occasion moderators have failed to acknowledge that Medicare for All would also eliminate co-pays, premiums, and deductibles, resulting in lower overall costs for most Americans.
Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) both stressed the latter point, but Lacey continued to focus exclusively on “middle class taxes,” echoing insurance industry propaganda against Medicare for All.
“Well, as somebody who wrote the damn bill, as I said, let’s be clear. Under the Medicare for all bill that I wrote, premiums are gone. Co-payments are gone. Deductibles are gone. All out-of-pocket expenses are gone,” said Sanders. “At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of people will save money on their healthcare bills.”
In an email to supporters after the debate, People’s Action executive director George Goehl wrote that the “corporate media once again used insurance company talking points to attack Medicare For All, repeatedly asking candidates ‘How are you going to pay for it?’ — but never once mentioning that Medicare for All will cut costs for everyday people.”
“The truth is, costs will go up if we pass Medicare for All — for big corporations and the very, very rich,” wrote Goehl. “Meanwhile, the rest of us will get a guaranteed right to healthcare, no matter how rich or poor we are. That’s why insurance companies and their lobbyists are fighting so hard — and spending so much — to frame the debate. If we pass Medicare for All, their days of profiteering off of other people’s misery are over.”
Los Angeles Times columnist David Lazarus put it more bluntly on Twitter:
Dear dumbshit debate moderators: The way it works is taxes go up, while premiums, copays and deductibles go away, meaning most people save money
— David Lazarus (@Davidlaz) October 16, 2019
The moderators’ right-wing framing of Medicare for All pervaded other questions asked throughout Tuesday night’s debate, which featured a historic 12 Democratic presidential candidates.
In a question on taxation directed at former Vice President Joe Biden, CNN host Erin Burnett said: “You have warned against demonizing rich people. Do you believe that Senator Sanders and Senator Warren’s wealth tax plans do that?”
Really? This is how the moderators are framing these topics?
They’re asking the tough questions hard working billionaires want answered. #DemocraticDebate pic.twitter.com/aBGzfcIBtN— Lucas Medina 🏳️🌈 (@LucaMedina) October 16, 2019
In her response, Warren flipped the question on its head.
“My question is not why do Bernie and I support a wealth tax,” said Warren. “It’s why is it does everyone else on this stage think it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to invest in an entire generation of Americans?”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.