Available Soon: Request your printed copies of the Idaho Freedom Index mailed to you!
Request Your Copies

Giddings correct about media bias in planned TV debates

Giddings correct about media bias in planned TV debates

by
Wayne Hoffman
April 19, 2022
Wayne Hoffman
April 19, 2022

Republican lieutenant governor candidate Priscilla Giddings is 100% correct to not subject herself to a debate run by Idaho’s leftist news media.

Her position is defensibly different from candidates who outright refuse to debate. It's all about the venue and media bias.

I’ve never understood why the legacy media are given such an outsized role in deciding the winner of Idaho’s primary elections. Questions asked during primary debates seldom align with conservative values like limited government and individual liberty, and it’s part of the reason we’ve been saddled with leftist Republicans in key offices for many decades. The problem has only gotten worse in recent years.

When I was still a reporter more than 20 years ago and invited to participate in the debates as a panelist, I questioned some of the questions that the government-owned broadcaster, Idaho Public Television, developed for primary election candidates. It seemed odd to me even then that candidates were not being asked their positions on basic issues that would be of concern to anyone seeking a GOP nomination. 

I later worked for U.S. Rep. Bill Sali in 2008 and almost had him sit out the debate over concerns about the League of Women Voters’ involvement, noting that the organization openly backed socialized medicine. Today, the League is still a participant, and the coalition of leftists involved in the planning and execution of the debate now includes the philosophically partisan public policy centers at Boise State University and the University of Idaho. Claiming these debates are nonpartisan affairs is absolute bunk. It’s a very socialist-centered affair. 

It’s not just Idaho Public Television at issue. Lately, the legacy media have abandoned any pretense of fairness or objectivity. Boise TV station KTVB has basically dedicated its news coverage to mocking or attacking conservative candidates, officeholders, their allies, and their political views. As with public television, KTVB’s debates are also not a credible resource to learn about the races or candidates on the ballot.

It’s likely that either the government television debates or the KTVB debates would feature panelists from the Idaho Capital Sun and Idaho Education News, who are openly hostile to conservatives. The social justice crusaders at the Idaho Capital Sun wrongly claim that the TV venues are merely an effort to help voters discern between competing conservative factions of the Republican Party. That’s patently untrue. 

Refusing to participate in the Left's circus acts has been billed by the media as an attack on the political process, and that is not true. Giddings wants a debate — she just wants a fair one in a fair venue. This is different from the positions of Gov. Brad Little, who laughingly said his record is not subject to debate, and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, who decided against any debate because his opponent Bryan Smith has already gotten enough attention. 

Little and Simpson have taken indefensible positions of not sitting for voter scrutiny, while Giddings, on the other hand, is merely concerned with the bias of the legacy venues. 

Giddings has said she wants to debate. She merely called the press out on their game. It’s been a long time coming. I wish more candidates would do the same. 

View Comments
  • john livingston says:

    Debate Priscilla. Like Mr. Trump says---"Anyplace, anytime, any person". You are strong enough to defend your positions and you can take on Scott and the media at the same time. Compete, don't just participate.

    • Al says:

      Agreed, Dr Livingston. Wayne, your excuse-making is quite pathetic here.
      Apply principles equally. Criticize Little for not debating and levy the same blame on Giddings.
      The prima donna doesnt have to abide by societal rules or norms.
      Doxxing alleged rape victims is broadly condemned by society but ok for her to do it.
      Lying and evading questions from an ethics committee is ok.
      And though the organization has never disclosed the panelists to debaters before, she insists she's entitled to it, so she was "forced" to withdraw.
      [Note how everything is always someone else's fault, Dr. Livingston, isnt that one of the indicia of leftists you complain about?] She CHOOSES her decision.

      • Bobby W says:

        Now longer an "alleged" rape victim, Al. A unanimous panel of 12 of Von Ehlinger's peers have decided she is truly a "rape victim".
        Classless Giddings still want to defend her actions?

    • Al says:

      And now McGeachin has backed out as well. Maybe you can proxy for both of them, Doc?

      • john livingston says:

        We are the "away team" playing on the "home teams' turf". We don't get to choose the field, the refs, or the media covering the event. Giving voters a chance to compare candidate's side by side is an American tradition. What a shame that Idaho voters will go to the polls in the Republican Primary without having candidates "stand before the people". By the way Raul proved my point on Tues night. Conservatives got to see a man taking conservative; positions and making his case. So refreshing.

    • Bobby W says:

      Still support Giddings' doxxing of the intern, now that the intern is officially a rape victim, Doc? Still think its ok to publicly disclose assusers' names?
      Giddings has to go. 2nd most unethical political figure of the past 2 years. And you know who is #1...

  • Idaho Freedom Foundation
    802 W. Bannock Street, Suite 405, Boise, Idaho 83702
    p 208.258.2280 | e [email protected]
    COPYRIGHT © 2022 Idaho freedom Foundation
    magnifiercrossmenucross-circle
    >
    linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram