Last night, Republicans (and Democratic masochists) cozied up to watch the fifth GOP debate of 2015. Hosted by CNN in Las Vegas, it featured nine presidential hopefuls sparring over mostly national security and foreign affairs questions. Some of the back-and-forths got nasty, including Trump vs. Bush, Cruz vs. Rubio, and watching the entire debate vs. my sanity.

But in a debate that focused heavily on the threat of terror, and the horrific actions of the San Bernardino shooters,  we heard a lot about political correctness last night. Most notably, according to serious contender Ted Cruz that “political correctness is killing people.” Slamming political correctness has become a new hobby for the Republican party, centered on the concept that Democrats are too scared of offending anyone that we have become weak on security.

Well here’s some political incorrectness for you guys: that line of thought is a fucking excuse, a waste of breath, and a complete misconception of the whole idea of political correctness.

The big flash point appears to be that despite the fact that one of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, posted messages on social media that advocated for jihad and showed she was radicalized, the Obama administration didn’t catch it. Nevermind the fact that she used a pseudonym with heavy security settings, “that did not allow people outside a small group of friends to see them.” The Obama administration was too busy being politically correct to use its crystal ball to divine that those posts were hers when she applied for a visa.

So what, exactly, were all the Republican candidates that railed against “political correctness” suggesting? That pseudonyms not be able to be used on Facebook or any other social media site? Well that’s a Facebook problem, not a political problem. Or that we should monitor every single person’s social media? That’s awfully Big Brother-ish, and if there are ramifications for someone posting something, well, that could impede on our Freedom of Speech. Or is it just people who don’t look, sound, or pray like the Republican candidates that should be monitored–there was after all, certainly no way we could have stopped Elliot Rodgers, who sent a manifesto outlining his plans before killing seven people and had spent time on multiple forums extolling his hatred for women. But of course, Rodgers, as a non-Muslim young man, was a victim of mental illness, nothing more. There’s no way we could have stopped him.

Or what about Dylann Roof, who shot nine people at a church in Charleston, South Carolina? It’s widely suspected Roof spent time on a white supremacist site called Daily Stormer. The manifesto he wrote uses language pulled almost directly from that site. Should he have been monitored? Or again, were his actions utterly unpredictable, beget out of mental illness and not out of any sort of radicalization that made him believe he needed to slaughter Black Americans?

Can we also talk about the logistical issues of what the Republican candidates were seemingly proposing? The average American age 18-24 sends or receive over 100 texts per day. Overall, time spent on Facebook worldwide accounts for 20 percent of all time online. In the U.S., 74 percent of all adults use at least some form of social media—we’re talking 240 million people. Even if we only identify 1 percent of them as even a possible threat–still 2.4 million people–how do we identify those people in the first place? Yes, we have algorithms, but computers can’t interpret tone or intent. So unless we want the NSA to spend its time sorting through Facebook posts, we have some serious logistical issues here–the NSA has had a hard time processing the data it already has. The Republicans on that stage last night wanted you to believe that we have Muslim terrorists writing “I’m going to commit an act of terror” on their Facebook pages and that the Obama administration is ignoring it, but that’s simply not true.

The internet is an unprecedented thing that we have now–the concept that we have access to this kind of massive personal information on people and their thoughts. We do need to figure out how to optimize policies in a way that will best help with national security. But the idea that all that’s stopping us from accessing all the answers about terrorism is “political correctness” doesn’t recognize the huge logistical undertaking proposed, the potential Freedom of Speech issues, the anonymity the internet provides, or the fact that the government maybe shouldn’t have access to every corner of it. This debate isn’t black and white–it’s significantly more nuanced than that. It’s not just about flipping a “political correctness” switch and suddenly being able to see everyone’s posts (particularly if they’re Muslim) and pinpoint terrorist attacks. And the fact that so many of the Republican candidates last night appeared to think that was the case indicates that they either don’t understand the internet, or are trying to score cheap political points. Given last night’s totally off-base contentions, I’d be surprised by neither.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Let’s All Shut the F**** Up About Political Correctness in a National Security Debate appeared first on Law Street.

If you watched CNBC’s Republican Debate last night, you probably noticed the candidates’ general disdain for the media. It started off early and persisted throughout the night, as the candidates criticized the moderators’ questions and the mainstream media’s coverage of the campaign so far.

The first candidate to criticize the media was Marco Rubio. When moderator Carl Quintanilla asked him about an editorial in the Sun-Sentinal that called for Rubio’s resignation due to his attendance record at Senate votes during the campaign, Rubio responded saying, “I read that editorial today with a great amusement. It’s actually evidence of the bias that exists in the American media today.”

Rubio went on to criticize the editorial and the double standard that he believes people have been using to evaluate him. He noted that several past presidential candidates actually had worse attendance records while campaigning, yet the Sun-Sentinel endorsed them. He expanded his criticism to argue that the mainstream media is generally inhospitable to the modern conservative movement.

While Rubio has a point when it comes to peoples’ criticism of his voting record, it is extremely important to note that the article that he referenced as an example of media bias was an editorial, which typically contain opinions from the editorial board and are not the same as a general news article. In fact, there is very little evidence of partisan media bias in news coverage. As the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog pointed out on Twitter, a meta-analysis of media bias in presidential elections found virtually no evidence of partisan bias, particularly in newspapers and news magazines. While the media does have its biases, they generally do not fall along partisan or political lines, rather they are often a product of the economic constraints faced by news organizations.

Arguably the most notable example of a candidate attacking the media came from Ted Cruz, who went on a rant against the moderators and election coverage more generally. He said:

The questions that have been asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media…

This is not a cage match. And, you look at the questions — ‘Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?’ ‘Ben Carson, can you do math?’ ‘John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?’ ‘Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?’ ‘Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?’ How about talking about the substantive issues the people care about?

Most of the criticism focused on the moderators and what critics argued were hostile questions. Cruz’s point captured the sentiment behind that criticism; he claimed that the debate focused more on personal disagreements and politics than substance.

In fairness to the moderators, Cruz made that comment in response to a question on his opposition to the recent Congressional compromise, which led Congress to raise the debt ceiling. By most standards, the debt ceiling is a substantive issue, and it is particularly relevant for Cruz as it allowed him to get at his tendency to use important votes–like the 2013 budget vote that led to a government shutdown–to talk about his agenda. Now, to Cruz’ credit, and regardless of how you feel about his positions, he did try to touch on important issues during Wednesday’s debate. His comments focused on his plan for a 10 percent flat tax, addressing the national debt, criticizing of the Federal Reserve, and a brief call to reinstate the gold standard. But regardless of his attempts to focus on real issues, the one quote that everyone seems to be focusing on his call-out of the moderators.

The media criticism wasn’t confined to Rubio and Cruz, though they did their fair share to bring it into the spotlight. Other candidates, notably Donald Trump and Chris Christie, spoke out against the moderators’ questions at several points during the debate. Afterward, the Republican National Committee (RNC) also expressed its displeasure with CNBC. Reince Priebus, the RNC Chairman, said that the network “should be ashamed of how this debate was handled.” He tweeted his criticism saying:

I will fight to ensure future debates allow for a more robust exchange. #GOPDebate

— Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In spite of the moderators, I’m proud of our team for standing up against the improper and unprofessional display put on by CNBC. — Reince Priebus (@Reince) October 29, 2015

In a review of the debate’s transcript, Bloomberg noted that in contrast to September’s debate, the candidates were more willing to criticize the moderators than each other. The analysis also found that there was a total of 14 points during which the candidates attacked the “mainstream” media. In response to the rush of criticism, CNBC’s Vice President of Communications, Brian Steel, issued a brief but direct statement. He said, “People who want to be president of the United States should be able to answer tough questions.” Although many agree with the candidates and the RNC, not everyone has criticized the moderators’ performance. While both sides have their points, it’s also important to ask why exactly the candidates are so vocal in their opposition to the mainstream media. 

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate: Candidates Agree on One Thing, They Don’t Like the Media appeared first on Law Street.

If last night’s GOP debate could be summed up in one word, it would almost certainly be “utter disaster.” Well, that’s two words, but in true debate form I will take some liberty with the constraints. In close second, the debate could be described as “entertaining” but unfortunately, substantive political discourse is rarely entertaining. Due to the media’s obsession with sensationalizing politics, and the candidates’ (somewhat forced) decision to play into this atmosphere, last night’s debate highlighted the growing issues with modern politics.

The debate was a disaster for a number of reasons, the primary one being the odd and, at times, incompetent moderating. Very little time was spent discussing substantive issues, which is crucial at this point in the race for allowing candidates to differentiate themselves. Moderators asked peculiar questions that seemed to be designed to embarrass candidates instead of revealing their policy ideas. This included attacking Marco Rubio’s voting record and asking  “why not slow down, get a few more things done first, or at least finish what you start?” calling out Jeb Bush on his falling poll numbers and asking Donald Trump “is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”  Moderators should certainly feel free to ask candidates about reasons they may not be qualified, however, this seemed to be the only goal of the moderators. The candidates noticed this apparent bias and began attacking the moderators, as well as the media at large. The crowd loved it, and the candidates continued these attacks for the rest of the night, even in post-debate interviews. An event that should have helped differentiate candidates mainly resulted in all of the candidates touting their disdain for media.

To make matters worse, the media decided to cover this election, like many other political events, about as horribly as it could. Instead of addressing the nuances of the debate, nearly every media outlet was content with publishing critiques of CNBC’s handling of the event, which while fair, decreases the public’s focus on the true purpose of the debate: hearing what the candidates have to say. The only other coverage of the debate were picks for “winners and losers.” Seriously, Google “GOP Debate” and look at the top results, I’ll wait…

Are these high quality political outlets or an ESPN version of politics? Who knows. At this point, much of our political dialogue has the same sophistication as our dialogue about sports. By manipulating the coverage of this event, the media pushes the public to choose winners and losers instead of strong or sound minded candidates with good ideas. Both the running of the debate and the post-debate coverage emphasized a polarization between the parties, and settled for petty direct attacks between candidates, not their substantive differences.

There were no winners in last night’s debate, except perhaps candidates who will gain polling boosts, but there were a lot of losers. CNBC, Republican voters, and perhaps most importantly, American politics at large. Without some drastic changes in the process and media coverage of political events, the perceived polarization and proliferation of petty political maneuvering will continue.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Debate Reveals Everything Wrong With American Politics appeared first on Law Street.