NBC was the primary network carrying the coverage, but it was simulcast on MSNBC and CNBC, as well.
I’m going to call shenanigans on this one. You might come close to that if you include all the times she asked the same question multiple times because he was either avoiding the question or telling outright lies.
We watched parts of both. My wife wanted to watch Trump’s for the entertainment value - see how animated he would get, how much horse manure would come out of his mouth. We switched to ABC during the commercials and after Trump’s ended. What we saw was Trump being Trump, and Biden being calm and collected. We also saw Trump speaking in sound bites and Biden talking at length about actual plans for his administration.
In a manner of speaking, yes. The media bias is towards sensationalism, and (in old parlance), sensationalism sells newspapers. NBC is going to get better ratings if Savannah Guthrie can get Trump’s ire up.
Thank you to @Lightnin for the list of all questions.
Stephanopoulos did a decent job. Yes Biden was lofted soft pitches, but Stephanopoulos asked pointed follow-ups and didn’t let him get off easily. I think Stephanopoulos handled it pretty well.
And Biden dodged some of them, yeah.
I don’t like either candidate much. I’m still undecided.
Again I didn’t see Trump’s, and much of the discussion here is about him and his.
I couldn’t agree more with your analysis of the current media complexion.
What I’ve taken to saying is, “the news used to be about telling us what they thought we needed to know. Now, it’s about telling us what they think we want to hear.”
And it is because they’re all aiming for profit these days. Market segmentation (ie, Fox came along and cleaved off the right, leaving almost 2/3rds of the audience searching for a new home) was a logical consequence.
No need to hear any stories that make you the slightest bit uncomfortable now. There, there. Isn’t that better ?
Mr. and Mrs. America ? Congratulations … it’s an Echo Chamber 
And Fox has a mortal lock on that august cohort of esteemed Americans who don’t tend to ask questions, don’t have a passion for critical thinking, believe deeply in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and are the primary audience for American Demagoguery, Trump style.
I watch as much Fox News as I do any other outlet. I wonder what % of Fox News viewers spend any material amount of time watching news outlets that represent the ‘opposing point of view’ (hearkening back to The Fairness Doctrine, may it Rest in Peace).
If you watch it all, you aren’t any better informed (ie, you just realize how much we’re all being manipulated), but you do tend to be endlessly shocked at how much Fox really is effectively State Media.
A sighting! There they are! The one still undecided voter!!
So in other words, “Both sides.” 
GMAFB.
When someone interrupts and won’t let the other guy even get a single syllable out, that guy’s not interested in a debate. The media are not obligated to fairness to a candidate when a candidate is doing everything in his power to reject the principles of fair play.
Yeah, because appointing appellate judges is BORING! And what’s the controversy? A Republican lawmaker nominated a conservative judge, and the Republican-lead Senate approved it. The immature names 1. fit in a sound bite and 2. at least are (marginally) funny.
You are right in one way, however. The “lamestream media” has spent ZERO time on those hurt by Trump’s corporate tax cuts (our individual taxes went up, btw), and ZERO time on how the Republican-lead Senate stonewalled Obama’s court appointments, waiting for a Republican president to fast-track his appointments. I would not be against McConnell being brought up on charges for the way he has not fulfilled his duties in the Senate.
It’s as if Trump expected a “hit job”!
He could have made an appearance at the virtual town hall but decided to be a big chicken instead.
I don’t get this strategy. The now-banned SlackerInc would do the same thing - he’d preface his remarks with, “I hold leftwing views/I’m a progressive/whatever”…and then go on to make comments that only someone hostile to the left would want to make.
Note that I’m not passing any judgment on the value of those remarks. It’s frankly both boring and a bit disturbing when one’s world view is never challenged (though in this particular thread, I don’t think the “challenging” commentary being offered is particularly valid).
So by all means, start a conversation in which you discuss why you believe Trump was treated with undue hostility while Biden got a free pass. Just leave the preliminary self-description of your views out of it. People will figure out what you believe by the arguments you make.
GET HIM, Everybody!
Damn! Ya got me! I need to be faster on my feet.
Trump asked for all of this. To want Guthrie to go easier on him is delusional. He leveraged himself into a time slot to interrrupt the democratic process. Having agreed to it NBC needed to actually get answers to their damned questions, instead of allowing him to regurgitate the last 4 years again. What kind of moron delusional asshole complains about “hard questions” or that they actually have to be answered on camera? When you want our votes to stay on as POTUS?
Guthrie knew that she was in the eye of the nation, and post trump reality is beckoning her and many others. A little late but much needed.
Mort Sahl was soft on Reagan but does anyone believe for a second that Mort would be soft on tormp?
Seriously though, there are few of you this cycle.
Are you deciding between voting for one of them v not voting(or third party, same thing) or between them?
Given that you don’t like either of them what do you think will or could still factor in at this point?
I also notice how certain stories are targeting me. I’ll open a browser I hardly ever use, and it’s not the same (yahoo.com, for example)… I think the best way to get the news is to go to the source. If it’s an interview, I’ll check that out first, and avoid the other noise so it doesn’t have an effect - I want to see if I have the same criticisms or praise. It’s amazing how so many different media sources will spin the same quotes… I’m addicted to newspapers.com. It’s amazing to be able to find almost any paper anywhere in the US (and beyond) from over 100 years, searching certain subjects, and especially people and to see how they change, especially how they describe the same event over time. What they include, omit, distort…
Yahoo used to have a comment section, and I use others… I do little experiments. For example, I’ll say the same exact thing, but I’ll add something like, “As a Bernie Sanders fan” and I’ll paste the same exact thing with Joe Biden and Donald Trump, and it’s funny how the up and down votes change because people pre-determine just on who they support, or the label they give themselves. I also notice that most conform, even with opinion. If you load the sample, people follow the trend. For example, if I have 20 accounts, and I can up-vote people tend to follow that same trend with a few outliers, but then again, there are some like that on YouTube who can’t stand to see a 0 for down-votes. You can take the same comment, and do the opposite - 20 down votes, and many times people follow the trend. They go into it with expectations, and try to validate while they read. I did a similar informal experiment to show (in Europe) that stereotypes are lazy, and usually inaccurate… Even the username brings on criticism - here and a couple of other places, but not too much… Same thing with avatar - a beautiful women will get better “online stats”. Chat rooms, too.
I do like going on Twitter to see what is trending, and then hitting LATEST up top, to get a good random sample, and scroll the most recent comments. Facebook is more personal, but it’s nice to observe friends and family. It’s sad that some have to send a PM with a message like, “You know, I agree, but they wouldn’t get it” - which is too bad because I think people do “get it” - at least a varying degree. I wish the audience was given a little more credit and not talked down to. On a chat room like AOL so many people would alter what they said depending on who else was in the room - usually friends they’ve spoken with for years, not wanting to rock the boat. And there’s always the in-out group. It’s easy to speak your mind when the majority of the room is there to echo the same things.
If there’s breaking news, I’ll DVR them all and compare… I also like to randomly select CNN and FOX just to see what they emphasize, and what they might be avoiding. I was a little surprised yesterday (or the day before) CNN did NOT have Biden on when he was speaking, but FOX did. Lately, I will spend a few weeks on one channel, while still getting a glimpse of the competition. It gives me time to evaluate the personalities (or lack of personality). It’s also interesting to see what channel/s a “big shot” selects to debut their latest book or project. My DVR also can rewind as far back as an hour, and one can get almost the same amount of basic information in a fraction of the time. You can also sorta see how long each channel focuses in on a story.
When one of the candidates is talking, it’s funny to see the headline (spin), and to see what each channel is reporting. Despite seeing the same exact thing, the responses are always different. It’s rare to hear nuance, or someone who can criticize and/or praise both (or more). I was surprised Wolf Blitzer found his balls when he was interviewing Pelosi.
Someone once described reporting as sticking your head out and telling people what you see. Anyway, my laptop is freezing with almost every sentence. I’ll leave it there.
Good lord, how do you find the time?
I’ve read this thread thru, but I can’t recall if someone else has already stated my eventual point. Apologies for restating.
Much has been made and/or bemoaned about Guthrie’s ‘holding Trump’s feet to the fire’ by asking the same question again and again and again, in a sometimes useless attempt to get Trump to give a real/true answer. People are saying ‘YEAH! That’s what the press should have been doing all along!’ And I was agreeing with that sentiment until I thought through such a scenario.
During a ‘press briefing,’ when Trump encounters a question he doesn’t like, he can (and does!) just move on to another reporter, often throwing insults first. A given reporter doesn’t have the opportunity to try pinning Trump down. With this Town Hall that Trump himself insisted on, there were no other reporters to call on. He could only do what he did, or he could have refused to answer a given question (which is also essentially what he did, many times) or he could walk out (and wouldn’t that have shown Lil’ Donnie to be a Weak Quitting Loser).
Guthrie had a very unique opportunity and she took it. I say good for her, and to hell with all the pissers and moaners who didn’t like her!
It’s my job, but I would do it for free. It is very time consuming, especially considering there’s more I do.
I’m very curious, and to get to the truth, you have to test the accuracy but even more, the more I disagree with something, the more I want to know why.
And why wouldn’t an undecided vote for Biden? My feeling is that most undecided voters are conservatives who can’t hold their nose and vote for Trump.
So, umm, exactly who pays you to do this?