Today on AirTalk, we'll consider the role of the moderator in the presidential debates, examine the winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, invite Congressmen Howard Berman and Brad Sherman on for a debate, look at an effort to reveal the names of "johns" to curb prostitution, and analyze the relationship between President Obama and the Supreme Court with Jeffrey Toobin.
Obama & Romney camps’ pre-emptive debate complaints
With just three weeks until Election Day, there is little the Obama and Romney campaigns can agree on. But united they stand on the role of CNN’s Candy Crowley when she moderates tomorrow night’s town hall debate.
Time magazine reports that both campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about comments Crowley made regarding her role as the moderator. She said on CNN last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y and Z?”
However, an agreement formed on October 3 between lawyers for both campaigns stated the moderator would “not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions…or the answers…or otherwise intervene [other than enforcing time limits and prompting the candidates to respond].”
It’s important to note that Crowley was not included in forming this agreement nor signing it. So is she beholden to it? How worried are the campaigns really? This morning NPR’s David Folkenflik called it “preplaining” (preemptively complaining) and suggested that perceived bias can help spin the debate reviews.
Discussing the Presidential Campaigns' Complaints About Debate Moderators
Tweets from NPR's David Folkenflik regarding campaigns' complaints about moderators, which prompted Twitter conversation between Folkenflik and The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg.
Storified by 89.3 KPCC · Mon, Oct 15 2012 10:11:03
There they go again... "@HuffPostMedia: Obama & Romney campaigns complain about Candy Crowley before tomorrow's debate http://huff.to/TmemEm"David Folkenflik
@davidfolkenflik Is there any moderator in the world whose selection would cause both parties to say, "Well, that's just a perfect choice?"Jeffrey Goldberg
@JeffreyGoldberg Used to be Lehrer, actually, at least publicly. Now they preplain abt someone the two parties & campaigns agreed to.David Folkenflik
@davidfolkenflik So it's immaterial whether or not there's someone of towering probity and legendary fairness in journalism. It's all cookedJeffrey Goldberg
@JeffreyGoldberg It's beyond working the refs. It's working the crowd to be primed to believe refs are biased agst your guy in advance.David Folkenflik
How narrowly defined can, and should, the moderator’s role be? Is “preplaining” aimed at keeping Crowley in line? Why wasn’t the moderator included in forming the agreement, if s/he is expected to honor it?
Guest:
David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent, National Public Radio (NPR)
UCLA's Lloyd Shapley is a match for the Nobel economics prize
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said that Lloyd Shapley’s work has sparked a “flourishing field of research” and has awarded him this year's Nobel economics prize.
Shapley, 89, is a professor emeritus at UCLA and has been at the university since 1981. He is being rewarded for his work in matching theory and its practical applications in markets, for example, how job seekers are matched with employers or how patients find donors of human organs.
"For example, students have to be matched with schools, and donors of human organs with patients in need of a transplant," the academy said. "How can such matching be accomplished as efficiently as possible? What methods are beneficial to what groups?"
Shapley used game theory to research different matching systems and to answer how one method may systematically benefit one agent or another in markets. Though it is not technically a Nobel Prize because it wasn’t established in the will of Alfred Nobel, winners are awarded 8 million Swedish kronor, or about $1.2 million. Alvin Roth, a Stanford University professor was also awarded in this catagory.
Guest:
Matt DeBord, KPCC Reporter; writes the DeBord Report KPCC.org
Berman and Sherman go Dem-to-Dem over San Fernando Valley district
The race for California’s newly-drawn 30th congressional district is shaping up to be one of the most contentious — and expensive — in the country. Democratic incumbents Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, who represent the 27th and 28th districts respectively, were thrown into the ring together thanks to redistricting and California’s “top two” primary system.
The new district is made up half from Sherman’s old district and a quarter from Berman’s; the remaining 25 percent comes from the old 30th district. The two candidates, both Jewish, have similar voting records but differ on issues such as the economy, immigration and higher education.
In the long and heated race, both candidates have taken figurative swings at at each other — Sherman accused Berman of overpaying his brother for political consulting, while Berman charged Sherman with profiting from interest charged to his own campaign accounts.
But last week, in a debate held at Pierce College, things literally got physical. After Berman accused his opponent of being, “either delusional or a liar,” Sherman approached Berman, put an arm around him and shouted, “You wanna get into this?” while a police guard hovered nearby. The incident captured national attention after a video was released by Berman’s campaign.
Both candidates later released official statements expressing regret over their actions, characterizing the race as “emotional.” Berman and Sherman addressed the issue on AirTalk:
Sherman's statement: "As you know I think that the voters are entitled to a dignified discussion of the issues. When you go to a 60-minute debate you deserve 60 minutes of dignified discussion. And for one minute it certainly wasn't dignified and the voters deserve better than that."
Berman's statement: "I've had countless debates over the years in public office with Republican opponents, in my election contests with legislators over issues. I've never seen anything like the inappropriate conduct that Brad exhibited at that moment. This wasn't about people being denied one out of 60 minutes, this was about someone who lost control, who got physical and threatened to have a fight and who even today, four days later, hasn't come to terms with conduct that I don't think is appropriate for a public officials, particularly one who is speaking to community college students, many of these people are first-time voters. These aren't the Valley values he likes to talk about' … I regret that Brad misstated my record, distorted it, lied about it, started screaming and shouting…I never came close to his face, and never did anything that would have justify that reaction."
With only a few weeks left to go, will they be able to keep things civil? How will these two impress their new constituents? Who will emerge to represent the 30th district?
Guests:
Howard Berman, Congressman (D-28), which includes Pacoima, Arleta, Panorama City, Van Nuys, North Hollywood
Brad Sherman, Congressman (D-27), which includes the west San Fernando Valley cities of Sherman Oaks, Reseda, Northridge, and Porter Ranch
Authorities reveal johns’ real names in effort to crack down on prostitution
“John” is the name often given to anonymous male customers of prostitutes, but many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. are beginning to reveal these patrons’ real names in an effort to curb criminal prostitution.
A majority of police officers maintain that outing and shaming those who pay for sex to be the most effective method for cracking down on the illegal act, according to survey data. Fresno, California, hosts a website called “Operation Reveal” that exhibits mug shots of suspected ‘Johns,’ while Oklahoma City has “JohnTV,” and in Arlington Texas, photos of suspects are literally plastered on highway billboards.
“Overall, about 60 percent of the communities that arrest the johns to begin with, in some way, release their identities,” said Michael Shively, a lead researcher to the study. “It’s only a subset of all those communities that are really doing it in an aggressive manner and with the specific intent of trying to either punish more severely, or to deter others from trying to buy sex.”
Shivley adds that some communities release identities as part of routine processing, while others take on a more aggressive approach.
These efforts do not go without criticism, as some say publicly humiliating possibly innocent suspects before they are given a fair trial could be particularly damaging to their well-being and inflict serious psychological harm to innocent family members.
Shivley says that while there’s no statistical evidence that shaming is effective, he says there is indirect evidence saying that it can work
“When asked what would deter them, known sex buyers say in surveys that being found out or being publicized is the thing they most fear,” said Shivley. “Most police officers will tell you the first thing that the men ask when they're getting arrested is 'Is my wife going to find out' or 'is my boss ring to find out'?"
How appropriate is this technique even if it is effective in curbing prostitution? Does it violate the rights of suspects?
Guest:
Michael Shively, lead researcher on the study, National Assessment of Efforts to Combat Demand for Prostitution and Sex Trafficking recently released by the National Institute of Justice; Senior Associate, Abt Associates, a private research company focused on criminal justice, social science, public health among other areas of research
Has the US Supreme Court been the Obama administration’s greatest obstruction?
U.S Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stunned the nation when he voted to uphold the Obama administration’s health care plan in an atypical decision announced on June 28, 2012.
Roberts’ vote marked another chapter in the often complicated and contentious relationship between Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama that began the day Roberts fumbled the oath of office at Obama’s inauguration. As a result of the 5-4 conservative majority Court led by Roberts and the slightly more liberal White House led by Obama, two influential branches of federal government – the judicial and the executive – have often found themselves in opposition over the last four years.
Author Jeffrey Toobin has documented the momentous ideological battle between the conservative Supreme Court and the Obama administration in “The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court,” including Obama’s criticism of the Court’s controversial ruling in the Citizens United case.
Toobin provides a thorough account of the dynamic relationship between the two intrinsically different divisions and their leaders that will likely resonate for decades to come.
Guest:
Jeffrey Toobin, author, "The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court" (Doubleday); staff writer at The New Yorker; senior legal analyst at CNN