The last couple of presidential and vice presidential debates have clearly demonstrated personal political bias on the part of the moderators. They have also demonstrated that there is an inherent conflict of interest regardless of the personal bias.
Journalists exist to report news and provide opinions supposedly based on news. They do not get paid to moderate debates. The result is that a “gotcha” at a debate is journalistic gold – a good week’s worth of news commentary as well as personal kudos for a job well done.
Strangely enough, the entirety of the Republican establishment knows about both the bias and conflict of interest problems yet do nothing but whine about them. Ideas associated with the elimination of journalistic moderators fall on deaf ears even when good options actually exist.
It is to be noted that debates over politics go back thousands of years. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle come to mind. What does the evolution of debate tell us about how best to conduct them? Today, we have all kinds of communication technology that can be used to moderate debates and minimize obvious distortions and abuses. Why are they not used independent of the journalist moderators? Patrick Henry College, outside of the District of Columbia, consistently wins national and even international debate competitions. Could they help design a debate format for the presidential nominees? The news networks obviously like one of their own in a moderator position, but so what? Does anyone think they will ignore the opportunity to broadcast a presidential debate?
The best presidential debate I heard was during the Romney/McCain presidential run – and it was conducted by Reverend Rick Warren. He asked the exact same questions of each candidate and allowed them to speak their minds without the presence or interruption of the other candidate. It was a breath of fresh air compared the recent debate that contained 9 topics in 90 minutes or, to be blunt, about 4 minutes of answer time per nominee – and this estimate doesn’t fully include moderator or opposition interruptions.
After the Candy Crowley interruption of the Romney/Obama debate, the RNC should have been on notice that more such interruptions would happen. Crowley suffered no repercussions for her behavior, and thus a signal was sent that journalist moderators were free to interject their own opinions and interests into debates. To me, there is no excuse for the failure of the RNC here. The options are many and the first option includes getting rid of the journalist moderator. The second option is to go to the Commission on Presidential Debates and demand a change in the approach to debate moderation.
16 comments
I have always wanted to see Mark Steyn be a moderator. Here nor there, the GOP doesn’t do anything about any of it because they are okay with all of it.
Amazing. Now that the republican candidate is headed down the toilet BECAUSE OF HIS OWN BEHAVIOR, you republicans blame it on everyone except your candidate and your party.
Americans get a choice between Trump behavior and Hillary behavior and that scares the crap out of you — why else are you here being Axis Annie?
‘The war is over, why do you still fight? Your leaders are not squandering their lives out in the trenches. Surrender and you can enjoy the rest of the war well-provided for in one of our concentration spas.’
I expect the desperation to ratchet up as you figure out that even with the suppression of the simple Republicans here already helping you out, the bulk of the Trump support will not waver.
These are not debates. They are advertising platforms for the candidates.
But, hey, Trump says he is please with each of his outings and he says how much people are turning to him (despite polling data that shows otherwise now) so who is to complain. He is getting what he wants and he is the BEST at it
Kind of refreshing, I think that’s why the party selected him in such record numbers.
Yeah, gotta love that polling data, especially the (now public) internals.
“Strangely enough, the entirety of the Republican establishment knows about both the bias and conflict of interest problems yet do nothing but whine about them.”
Not strange. That is because they are all part of the same cabal.
RNC could easily fix these problems but they don’t because THEY DON’T WANT TO FIX THE PROBLEM. It is like the Soviet Union: the UniParty and the propaganda machine go hand in hand.
Your point is well taken. The word RINO exists for a good reason.
Same with CINO and RACO.
Not just there, look at our SCC, the $4 million jammed on taxpayers, the “conventions” that ratify the wishes of the elitists, look at our ‘principled conservatives who would rather elect HRC then jeopardize their permanent loser status.
You expect Libertarians to be crazy-focused on not winning elections, (and they are exceptionally good at it)
It is the ‘Conservatives’ that usually have 6 or 7 cows when the RNC and a few RINOs don’t support the nominees, but this election have chosen the political ‘mass extinction’ route. #They’reWithBolling
Interesting piece!
(I always did love Rick Warren, member on the Council of Foreign Relations, and all!)
The Preacher/Author? I thought the CFR just used them for sacrifices.
Ha! You got me laughing!
Eventually, as sacrifices. But before then, they get to enjoy something called Useful Idiot Status.
Useful Idiot Status is like being an assistance to a shop floor boss, or maybe even something like being an Altar Boy! They get to carry around water, candles, pencils … stuff like that.
If you’re going to have priest king overlords, you need some way to recruit, train, and manage you minions.
Already done! You just have to dangle out prestige and money … and the scum flock like bees to honey. Anyone who does not tow the line gets ‘disincentivized.’
Disincentivized in New Speak means: shut out, ends up in the poor house.
The whole thing is easier than ‘recruit, train, and manage’ might suggest.
Yes, but the point Jeanine made is excellent: Why does the RNC continue allowing this idiocy when the answer is simple: All debates should be held in even numbers, with the candidates choosing the venues and moderators — half chosen by the Republican, half by the Democrat. But the trick is making sure that both sets of moderators play by the same rules, and if Democrats want biased and argumentative ‘fact-checkering’ moderators, then turnabout is fair play.
Finally, truth!