posted by andrew golis @ 4:14 PM
In partial defense of the Election Commission:The decision to let candidates use extra flyers to publicize the debate really didn't work last year. Glazer used them by folding the part about the debate into doorboxes so that no one saw it. It was a smart move on his part. The other candidates did nothing. Also, there were as many people as there have ever been (supposedly) at the debate. Two years ago, Science Center A was half-empty.Also, there were 2 UC-general emails from Mike Love, neither of which was forward to mooselist by Dunster reps.-Greg Michnikov
I have three general comments to make.The first point is that I think the behaviors of the moderators last night was fairly absurd. Sure, they drew laughs and kept the debate interesting, but at the cost of undermining the more serious issues the debate was meant to address. They may have followed "the rules," and it was good that they tried to keep people on track, but I just heard hostility. What's more, I spoke to several people after the debate (most of whom have not yet declared allegiance to any candidate) who said it was pretty clear that the moderators had some pretty evident biases. Nuff said.Another issue that the anonymous post brought up yesterday was the role that Capp and Glazer have played in the election thus far. While I respect the decision not to endorse any candidate, I wish they could serve as a kind of sounding board, perhaps right here on Cambridge Common, for reader questions and concerns about the election. The current VP and Prez certainly know the most about what is feasible and what is not, which platforms are unrealistic and which are not ambitious enough. Apart from offering somewhat objective responses to the (very different) platforms, Matt and Clay might also offer their personal views, even explain why they have chosen not to endorse thus far. I would really like to hear more from them, and not just in casual dining hall conversations. This last point, and I can see Golis smiling already, is just that I am very impressed with the work Cambridge Common and Team Zebra have been doing with this election coverage, as a Crimson reporter and as a student. We have a few big stories coming out in days to come about the intricacies of this election, but I think you guys really have been able to point to some of the larger underlying issues at stake here in a way we can't at THC. Kudos. And Golis, don't quote me on this.
So since I do not have a bias yet, and yet have now been accused of "CLEARLY" being for ALL THREE CAMPAIGNS, I have no idea what to make of the moderator bias accusation.Also, the video's now up for everyone to see, and having watched it again from a different perspective than last night, it seems to me that Steve and I were aggressive across the board. In fact, I was personally told I might have gone soft on one presidential candidate, but in the video it seemed like I was most aggressive to him. Perhaps it is to his credit that he made it seem "easy", I don't know what to think.Overall I think the candidates were given every opportunity to reply with substance, either through moderator questions or through questions amongst themselves. If there wasn't enough meat to the debate, you can hardly blame it on the people doing the questioning. As I said before, we weren't there to make the candidates feel warm and cuddly so they could hem and haw through their speaking time. At worst, they got rattled and nobody likes that, I guess, but at best, the audience (and now the campus) got an opportunity to see how they responded to tense situations.
Greg, which e-mails on UC general are you talking about? I looked for one to send over the moose list in the hours before the debate, but couldn't find any. I e-mailed the moose-list with my own personal announcement at 6:21, and then e-mailed UC general at 6:27 to remind UC members about the debate and ask where the EC publicity was. At 6:28 (an hour and a half before the debate), Mike Love e-mailed out his "final publicity push." I saw no need to forward this sterile e-mail because I had just sent out my own personal appeal. I also sent out messages to Dems-Talk and Dems-Exec.I let our CHI reps take care of the e-mail about the CHI debate. If there was an earlier message on UC general from Mike Love, please point it out, because I must have missed it.The reason I didn't forward Mike's announcement about the debate video over the mooselist is because he sent it over UC general at 2:35 this afternoon, and then you sent it to the mooselist at 2:36. I couldn't match your speed. I actually got it immediately, but you beat me to the moose-list while I was asking Mike if someone could edit out the 12 minutes of dead time in the beginning of the debate video. (Answer: no).Also, re: your comment that "The Election Commission is thankless work." No excuse. You and your roommate were pretty rough on the Dunster UC reps over the moose-list after the Wyclef fiasco ;)I do think attendance was decent at the debate, but the audience was overwhelming composed of those of the campus political elite. I would have loved to see more "regular" Harvard students there.
Who are the campus "political elite?" Maybe other students don't show up because they know the room will be full of people who think this title applies to them.
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
Post a Comment