So, being beamed aboard the Starship CNN for a couple of very interesting weeks allowed me an extended bit of travel inside of the network that some conservatives view with a great deal of suspicion and many with downright hostility.
I bring you news of possible peace.
My view was limited to the work and thought processes of perhaps 30 news professionals, and I stress professional. The question selection and show production process for a GOP debate had never been open to me before, so it was all new and I cannot compare it to debates from the past. All I know is what I saw and heard for two weeks. The observations:
1. There were no ideological axes being ground. From Jeffrey Zucker to the youngest intern, everything was about giving the GOP candidates fair and frequent opportunities to differentiate themselves from the large field on the big issues driving the campaign. Candidates like Donald Trump — indisputably the leader of the national polls — would get more at-bats because of his top dog position. Others with whom he had clashed would be given opportunities to respond and persuade the GOP primary voters that they were a better choice. Everyone would be given enough opportunities to make or break impressions that either didn’t exist at all or needed to be strengthened.
2. The debate had to move at the speed of the modern audience’s viewing habits. That meant, if not rapid fire questions, then at least a steady feed of new and arcing questions leading to natural confrontations and sometimes agreement on the key issues — all of it of interest to the GOP primary voter.
3. The world is in on fire, the catastrophic agreement with Iran almost a done deal for at least a year-and-a-half, Syria a living Hell and 4 million refugees pouring out into neighboring lands. This debate, unlike the first, had a focus on national security and on “commander-in-chief” questions and there was general agreement on their priority. I am confident more time was spent on more important subjects to the world as a whole than any previous debate, even as crucial domestic issues of immigration and the horrific Planned Parenthood videos got their time and engaged the candidates.
4. By general agreement, the new addition to the stage, Carly Fiorina, carried away the gold and Marco Rubio the silver, with a host of opinions on who picked up the bronze medal. Nobody had a disaster. Sen. Lindsey Graham is a polished, funny and persuasive presenter who won many new fans, and Bobby Jindal hung on. Some folks like George Pataki should probably pack it in and create more space, but others like Rick Santorum again demonstrated tenacity and appeal to key core constituents.
5. The audience was enormous even as the debate was long — because the American people want serious discussions about serious subjects in a very dark time. I am not surprised by the numbers. I think they support my first assertion that the intention to deliver a fair debate drove the process and the product, being fair and revealing, kept the audience. (By the way, presidents have lots of long meetings in highly pressurized circumstances, which is a good thing to expose the audience to. Chairs might be nice.)
6. Finally, with sincere thanks to those listeners who have asked via Twitter why I wasn’t given more time: Understand that the panelists shouldn’t matter. Really. The candidates do. Jake Tapper did a masterful job of quarterbacking a complex game plan flawlessly, and Dana Bash and I were wide receivers he threw to when necessary. It worked. We are not the story on Thursday morning, the candidates are. Mission accomplished.
It was a mature, important, extended exchange among serious people on the biggest subjects. I hope all debates follow this model and let the candidates be the candidates. Kudos to Reince Preibus and the RNC, Salem Media and above all CNN for threading a new needle, one that put a conservative into the process and proved that it added value. It was the first full step for the broadcast media in recognizing that ideological diversity in these settings is a big plus. May many more follow.
Three final thoughts, from the very ground level.
First, there is no better venue for this event than the Reagan Library and the extraordinary technical effort of the CNN team in building that set with that backdrop and all those cameras is a testament to the fact that CNN invests in the behind the scenes talent to make the on-camera product fly.
Second, as an outsider, I might have been met with at least stand-offishness by Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, and a raft of longstanding CNN talents, but they’re defined by graciousness on and off camera.
Finally, Jake and Dana and especially Eric Sherling and Mark Preston — CNN’s very funny, very intense duo assigned to teach the radio guy the basics of television news (they don’t really count a decade at PBS’ LA local KCET affiliate as “television” news) — were as terrific a team of tutors as one could hope to find in any field. Long may they prosper in providing fair and important forums for the issues tormenting the world and discussions about who should lead it — in a word, the “news.”