Another view of the WHAM 13 piece on Brooks and Stainton
In our last post, we wrote:
This could have been an awesome debate, a real chance to see a clash of ideologies, and an excellent chance for the people to hear ideas from a candidate who supports alternatives to the drive-everywhere car culture. 13WHAM wasn’t about to let that happen, though.
WHAM 13 replies:
We plan to focus on Mr. Stainton’s platform in future broadcasts. This
morning, the purpose was to focus on whether he merits a debate. We
devoted more than six minutes to the discussion, which is a marathon in
terms of news time.
I haven’t seen the piece yet, but I do think that a debate about whether to debate is valuable. While an issues-based piece would have been good in its own way, a real candidate debate would be even more useful and I think the question of whether or not Brooks will agree to a debate is important.
We also wrote:
The video presented a well-lit Nojay in studio, wearing a jacket and tie, in a tight head and shoulders shot. Stainton is presented as an outsider, standing in the public market, without a tie, and with a run-down building in the background. The camera is much further away from Stainton, as though they don’t want to get too close to this dangerous man…
WHAM 13 replies:
Both were invited to come in to the studio. Mr. Stainton declined, saying he could not take time away from collecting signatures at the public market. He asked if he could appear via telephone, and I said an alternative was to send a live truck his way. He chose the location, and I did not notice a run-down type of atmosphere in the background; we introduced him as being out at the public market, which I would assume was clear to the viewer.
That doesn’t address the fact that Nojay was so rude.
Try listening to his radio show.
Did you notice that he said it was the “Democrat Party”? He’s such a stupid Republic.
This comment seriously made me laugh out loud.
A debate about whether to debate? Can we have a meeting to decide if we need a meeting? Since when does $250,000 make your ideas more valuable in terms of their intrinsic value? I don’t like where this is heading…
I think they should have a debate, but it isn’t really WHAM’s place to say. All they can and should do is ask the two sides to discuss why they should or shouldn’t have a debate…which is what they’ve done here.
I actually agree that it was a pretty fair piece, now that some of my objections have been cleared up. It’s pretty common in politics to wrangle for a while before scheduling a debate. I doubt Brooks will actually debate Stainton, she’s got nothing to gain from it.
If he appeals to her ego then she might do it. No politician wants to seem elitist.