The second presidential debate is over. The dust is still settling as to who did the best or the worst but one thing is clear: Fox News proved to be a much better debate host than MSNBC.
Stephen Spruiell has a video comparison of MSNBC/Politico questions and those asked by FNC's staff:
Ed MorrisseyI think the MSNBC/Politico questions actually got stupider with age.
By contrast, the FOX News questions were serious and the questioners tenacious in pursuing answers. Even the questions that viewers submitted to FOX via e-mail were far better than "What do you dislike most about America?" and the other nonsense that got past the Politico's electronic gatekeepers.
Watch the video. I created a montage of MSNBC questions first, followed by a montage of FOX questions. The increase in the seriousness and difficulty of the questions is comparable to that between high school and college
puts it well:
There is no comparison between Brit Hume and Chris Matthews, and the two networks as well. This was crisp, sharp, with germane and substantive questions and a minimum of silliness. The MSNBC forum was so silly that it almost defied description. Perhaps the Democrats should reconsider their allergy to Fox.Michelle Malkin:
That was simply in a different league than the goofball format and goofball "moderators" on MSNBC. And I'm not just saying that because I work for Fox News. Given the crowded stage and time constraints, the debate still produced memorable moments, spontaneous conflict, and useful shakeouts.
