Letters to the Editor
-
The Basic Explanation
seems to be that Stephanopoulos and Gibson didn't want to face the criticism from Drudge and Hannity and O'Reilly that they hadn't asked Clinton and Obama about all these things. And that, to them, is far more important than any personal integrity in terms of how to structure the debate or what the voters of Pennsylvania might want to know (compare Broder's reporting).
It reminds me of the novels I've read where the main character would break up with her boyfriend because, although he was great for her and she loved him, he didn't have a good haircut and good clothes and the friends she looked up to (who couldn't care less about her happiness) didn't like him. Rather than show some journalistic integrity and independence, they'd rather pander to certain of their critics. And then idiots like Brooks stand up for them because they equate what Hannity and Drudge and O'Reilly are interested in to what the people are interested in, since those are the people they hang out with.
The only remarkable thing in all this is that the firestorm about how insipid this all was has actually shown some legs, been mentioned in the MSM, gotten some people's attention (even if only to dismiss it).
It would be a damn shame if we couldn't use the opportunity of an Obama-McCain race to have an adult discussion as a nation about the war and why we're there and whether we should get out. Notwithstanding Mr. Brooks' comments (and echoing Broder's), I think the American people are eager for just such a campaign. And I think if the echo chamber would stop and hold Mr. Straight Talk Express to his nickname, and demand such a campaign, that we might actually have it.
Of course, I also believe in the Easter Bunny (j/k).