Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage

The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.

Comments

I think they missed some "maverick" uses in there.

[damn_registrars]

I will have to watch the debate again, but I'm pretty sure Palin referred to herself as a "maverick" at least once in the debate, but I cannot find it by using the tool to search for "maverick".

Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[eagee]

The fact checking is something I wish they would do live during the debate. Maybe a ticker at the bottom.

Still, this is a step in the right direction!

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine!

[schwaang]

Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.

Viewing tools?

[Hatta]

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Re:Viewing tools?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Yeah. My folksyometer redlined about ten minutes in.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Hatta]

Probably, most of her responses were taken straight from John McCain's debate last week. I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job. Even the NPR coverage was favorable towards Palin. I thought she was extraordinarily stiff, and had to work really really hard to fit her scripted answers to Gwen Ifill's questions. She was hanging on for dear life.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[VeNoM0619]

So.. a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for putting Jesus Christ in office?

Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

What is up with this demonization of Atheists in the US? We're just people who have come to the conclusion that a "god" isn't real, just as chrisitians (?) come to the conclusion that santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy isn't real when they grow up. We are of no threat to christians, except perhaps to stop them from imposing their religion on the world.

The existence of a "god" obviously can't be disproven, but neither can flying pink elephants, or the flying spaghetti monster.

Link to CNN transcript

[langelgjm]

CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here.

I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be so hard on atheists. You both share a common disbelief in thousands of deities. They just believe in one less than you do.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[Mister Whirly]

Thank you Anonymous Coward. I was on the fence before, but your post has convinced me to finally convert to Atheism! I can't thank you enough sir. Your insightful, non-judgmental, articulate post is a shining beacon into this dismal hell where we all live!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[try_anything]

I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job.

She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again. She delivered a controlled, heavily scripted, marginally competent performance, which is exactly what VP candidates are expected to do.

Come to think of it, controlled, heavily scripted, and marginally competent is exactly what VP candidates are expected to be, so if she keeps this up, she won't hurt McCain at all. Unfortunately.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[mweather]

Nor is oppression by Christians.

In summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Flowchart of Palin's debate tactics

The fact that it's so accurate actually stops me from laughing.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[clone53421]

And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...

Well, there's your problem... McCain and Palin are just two characters.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[Kazoo the Clown]

Well, what's correct?

- A "herd" of mavericks? Well, maybe.
- A "gaggle" of maverics? No, that's for geese.
- A "murder" of maverics? No, that's for crows.

I suggest, an "oxymoron" of mavericks...

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[slimjim8094]

Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.

I thought Biden actually did better than Obama in the first presidential debate... but I digress.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[dilvish_the_damned]

Scary, isn't it?

Yes, yes you are.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the

[geekoid]

Since none of them are mavericks, I suggest "Liars".

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off

[uvajed_ekil]

So.. a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for putting Jesus Christ in office?

Wait, the GOP haven't switched the ticket when I was busy eating babies, did they? Jesus Christ in office? Man, and I thought McCain was old. At least then you might not have to worry about Palin taking over, since J.H.C. has already shown incredible resiliency to being murdered. Would that violate the constitution, or would it only be a problem if his dad was on the ticket with him?

Re:A fact checker?

[Mr. Slippery]

The problem isn't who is being asked questions or giving the reporters the answers. It is the over tones of the reporting from the reporters themselves.

But what you describe has nothing to do with left/right bias. It's all about - as you say - creating controversy and selling papers.

They rolled over on it because for the previous 10 to 15 years, the exact same saber rattling stuff had been said but the previous administration and administration officials. I suspect you were too busy popping zits and chasing Suzie Shallowthroat around to have been paying attention.

Excuse me, sonny, but I marched against the first Gulf War. (I'm not saying I did a lot, that I was some great activist. But I was there.) The Congressional fsck-up that authorized it occurred on my 21st birthday. By the time Clinton came along, my zits were pretty much cleared up.

And I watched with dismay (and did a little minor activism) as Clinton pulled the Democratic party to the right and into an aggressive, brutal, and stupid foreign policy in the GOP mode. (It's not just on economic issues that "Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while.")

The real opposition to the invasion didn't start becoming apparent until after it.

Bullshit. Millions of people demonstrated against W's war before the invasion. I was one of them. (Again, I'm not saying I did a lot. But I was there, and probably got my name on a list somewhere when I organized an anti-war poetry reading and sent recordings of it to Baltimore's congresscritters.)

Coverage of the pre-invasion protests in the corporate media: diddly-squat.

Don't even TRY to tell me I wasn't paying attention, when you apparently didn't even know that there was a significant anti-war movement until after the invasion.

And why didn't you know? Because the conservative MSM was totally on board with the war.

Re:Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Che

[Straif]

So according to this logic because I hold 2 degrees, live in my nations capital, and have traveled to London, Paris, Switzerland, Italy and Monte Carlo my opinion can not be questioned for any reason.

Perhaps you are willing to surrender your free will to you perceived betters, but I tend to look more at the empirical evidence and make up my own mind. But to each his or her own.