Column: Obama needed debate blowout but didn't get it

      In this column written by William A. Jacobson, Jacobson in the beginning of the article mentions how Romney had a strong performance on Tuesday’s debate. However, there is no indication in the throughout the column of Governor Romney’s strong performance on Tuesday’s debate other than that reference. What Jacobson--a right leaning columnist—is doing is creating unnecessary controversy. He pin point vague topics that President Obama made throughout the debate and poorly critiques them. For example, one of the main points that Jacobson made in the column was that the day that our ambassador was killed in Libya, President Obama, “went to Las Vegas for a fundraiser”. What Jacobson fails to recall is that the day of 9/11 there were a huge controversy as to the whereabouts of President Bush who was a Republican. So Jacobson goes on to criticize President Obama for going to a fundraiser the day that our ambassador was killed however, he fails to mention that on day of one of the biggest events in American History, no one was able to recall President Bush’s whereabouts. 

        In addition, Johnson also notes that President Obama’s biggest mistake in the debate was failing to address how the next four years of his presidency will be different.  However isn’t the whole point of the Presidential Debates to address the changes that will occur with the next presidency? From personally watching the debates, I can safely say it seems pretty clear as to where both presidential candidates stand on issues and how their policies in the next four years will address the issues. Johnson’s column seems to be written just to display a poor written argument. It appears that Johnson has no background at all as to where either candidate stands on the issues. Johnson seems to base his argument only off of Tuesday’s debate, and the propose seems to be to attack President Obama and the Democrats. Where the majority believes that Obama did substantially well on Tuesday’s debate, Johnson seem to think otherwise. Because he is a right leaning columnist, Johnson has to create an argument against President Obama. His intent on the audience is show them that President Obama is a weak candidate and shouldn’t be in office. However, Johnson’s column fails to make logical arguments that clearly display weaknesses in President Obama’s performance. 

Editorial: Presidential debate fantasy vs. reality TV

This article is a perfect example of why balance especially in political journalism is bad.  The Editorial Board who wrote this article doesn’t seem to have a bias view towards either one of the presidential candidates. The editorial starts off by critiquing Jim Lehre, the conductor of the political debate. By doing this, the editorialists are creating unnecessary controversy. Lehre, the person conducting the debate shouldn’t have been the focus of the article, yet the editorial dedicates an entire paragraph criticizing the approach that Lehre took on Wednesday’s debate. This creates nonexistent controversy. It’s not like Lehre had much  say as to how the debate should have been conducted, he was simply the conductor and he focused on unclear issues. Most American’s are well aware that Republicans are pro-life and anti-gay marriage however, not everyone knows what the Republican stance is on the future of Medicare; which was one of the issues that were covered in the debate. In addition, even though the editorial mentions that sixty seven million people tuned in to watch the debate, what the article fails to note is that most Americans have already chosen a political side especially with the election less than a month away and Wednesday’s debate was just a formality to reiterate both candidates stance on vague issues. The authors of the articles want the reader to realize that the debate terrible and failed to include most issues such as gay marriage. Finally, by criticizing both candidates, the article conveys that political questions are unsolvable and that both candidates are unfit for presidency because their political stance is flawed. The article's credibility is questionable because the article lacks objectivity and a bias opinion.