Beckel, Thomas…Liberal, Conservative…Liar, Liar…Disgrace, Disgrace.

Yesterday, after the first Presidential debate had concluded, USA Today columnists Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel’s joint feature was posted on the USA Today website; this morning, the same feature graced the newspaper’s print edition, on its op-ed page. Thomas and Beckel do a regular “point-counterpoint”-style debate which is presented as a conversation, and this one was about sprucing up the presidential debates.

“Cal Thomas is a conservative columnist. Bob Beckel is a liberal Democratic strategist. But as longtime friends, they can often find common ground on issues that lawmakers in Washington cannot” is how USA TODAY always introduces the hackneyed format. The most recent feature began like this:

BOB: Wednesday ‘s debate was déjà vu all over again. It made me wish for a fresher format. The two major party candidates for president looked and sounded presidential, standing behind two lecterns with a nice television-friendly backdrop facing a single moderator. But we’ve seen it many — too many — times before.

CAL: Don’t forget the television-friendly ties both wore after their handlers probably spent hours coming up with the right color.

BOB: And then there was the “spin room” where surrogates for both candidates claimed victory for their guy. It resembled a summer TV rerun: same script, but with different “stars.” The debate was broken into six segments, each with a question chosen by the moderator. Each was given the same amount of time to respond to the question followed by a period of discussion. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, did try to keep the candidates focused on the question at hand, but each response was obviously practiced. Except for those with HD quality sets, debates haven’t changed much since 1960.

Wait—what debate did these guys watch? Obviously, none at all. 

If Thomas and Beckel’s  “conversation” had really been prompted by last night’s debate, it could not have failed to notice that it was substantially different from past debates. Moderator Jim Lehrer’s planned number of segments was jettisoned by the lively and lengthy exchange. The candidate responses weren’t “practiced’ at all. And for the most part, both candidates did keep on topic.  clearly, Beckel and Thomas wrote the entire column before the debate had commenced, maybe days before. They used a generic description that they thought would be safely appropriate no matter what occurred, and flagrantly lied by presenting their work as if it was written in response to the actual debate. And USA Today let them do it—let them lie to its readers.

The proof of the deception was everywhere: the vague, intentionally unspecific characterization of the debate, the  blatantly inaccurate description of the most substantive and lively presidential debate in decades, and perhaps ever, as “deja vu,” the reference to the previously announced number of segments that never materialized in the actual debate, the odd failure of the two experienced political pundits to notice what virtually every single other pundit has commented upon: that this time, the combination of the format and the individuals involved served the country and voters well, and delivered great television besides.

Need more? How about the fact that USA Today posted the column just eight minutes after the debate was concluded?

Wow! Cal and Bob must have been talking fast!

Their piece read like a high school book report by a student who never read the assigned book, and no wonder: that’s exactly what it was. The difference: such book reports, which any teacher can spot, are treated as cheating, an attempt to deceive, and grounds for a failing grade. USA Today not only accepted Beckel and Thomas’s deceptive punditry, but paid them for it and conspired with them to try to pull one over on its readers by publishing it as a reaction to the debate the two men couldn’t possible have seen before the feature was written.

A newspaper can’t be more dishonest than this. It is journalism malpractice, and shows utter contempt for the public. As for Beckel and Thomas, their “common ground” is as dishonest, lazy hacks who are a disgrace to punditry.

___________________________________________

Facts: USA TODAY

Graphic: Mlive

Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at  jamproethics@verizon.net.