Why should moderators be impartial?

I really don’t get it. People are already accusing the moderator of last night’s debate as being partial toward Clinton.

I’m sorry: this isn’t a high school debate where the moderators must remain impartial. This is basically, as I’ve said, a glorified press conference with journalists sitting there conducting it.

Furthermore, and this is a major point: FACTS ARE NOT IMPARTIAL. FACTS ARE FACTS. When Trump (and to a much lesser degree, Clinton) said something demonstrably wrong, I don’t want the journalist to sit there and say nothing. Screw that: when Trump says, “I never said that,” I want his dámņëd Tweet in which he said exactly that to be projected on the wall behind him. These people are fighting for the hardest job in the world, and if they cannot be counted on to be consistent with things they themselves have said in the past, how can any sane person count on what they say in the future? And how can any journalist just let them go?

I want the reporters to take off the kid gloves and grill these people. It’s their dámņëd job and it’s about time they started doing it, because I’m sorry, Walter Cronkite wouldn’t let them pull this crap.

PAD

28 comments on “Why should moderators be impartial?

  1. How? The moderator kept giving Donald the opportunity to respond to a response. That’s not a debate. He would say “OK 10 seconds” and then Donald would go on a 2 minute rant.

    I agree with what some people have suggested with an Oscar style cut off. They have their time, and if they go over they are warned at after 30 more seconds the mic is cut off. Many a big name has had their mics cut…bigger than the Donald. That would bring it at least a bit closer to a debate format.

  2. I disagree. A moderator is exactly that – a *moderator*. It is *not* their job to fact check or otherwise comment on the content of the debate. Leave that to the commentators and journalists. The moderator of a debate such as this may be a journalist in his day job, but for the duration of the debate, his job is to moderate – to keep things level, cutting off one from talking over the other, or from taking more time than they are allotted, or if one gets too abusive in their language. But no, the *moderator* is not supposed to be fact-checking. Let the newsroom people run the fact-checking underneath in the crawl. Having the moderator do anything else opens up the role to feature creep.

    Personally, I think these debates should be automated – the two candidates are in sound proof booths, where they can hear but not be heard until their mike is turned on. Their mike gets turned on for the defined period, and gets cut off, even in the middle of a word if need be. Put up a light board with the question, and then display Candidate 1 Response, Candidate 2 Response/Rebuttal, Candidate 1 Rebuttal. Next question, Candidate 2, Candidate 1, Candidate 2… Show a countdown as they talk.

    1. No, there should be fact checks in place. Maybe not the moderators, but I have no issue with that. They could easily have a team to check facts though, and then hand the fact check to the mods for public consumption.

  3. Didn’t watch the pantomime, but it sure is funny most Americans I know want neither option to be in charge. And you thought we were daft to leave Europe 🙂
    Moderator – an arbitrator or mediator, not favouring one side or the other.

  4. Disclaimer: I recorded the debate — haven’t watched it yet.

    Generally speaking, I prefer my journalism and my moderation to be impartial. When the moderator takes a side, it is no longer A vs B, it is A+C vs B.

    If the “rules” of the debate are not enforced equally, we (the viewer/listener) don’t get a true picture of what is going on.

    I am all for fact checking — but that isn’t the moderators job. (IMHO)

    TOTALLY random side note. Had the most bizarre dream last nite. I was invite to some political function and wound up sitting next to (across from really) Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. I wound up talking to them about “This guy I know” named Peter David who wanted to write a screenplay for “Mr. and Mrs. Smith go to Washington” as a sequel to their previous movie. For what it is worth, Dream-Brad Pitt liked the idea…..

    1. “I am all for fact checking — but that isn’t the moderators job. (IMHO)”

      Agreed. Given they had a good idea of where things were going to go during the debate, Clinton’s team ought to have prepared her with “Sorry, Mr. Trump, but on [date] in [source], you said [quote].” Not for everything, but there were a couple of items Trump himself knew he was going to be questioned about and Clinton should have been ready to set him straight when he [predictably] got it wrong/false.

  5. It’s almost unreal watching the spin today. Four years ago you said that most Democrats could admit when Obama blew it in a debate (as evidenced by the reactions to the first Obama/Romney debate) while most Republicans were incapable of admitting that their guy blew it (as evidenced by every other debate that year).
    .
    Man…
    .
    The Romney supporters had nothing on the denial and delusional excuse making of the Trump diehards.
    .
    I’m seeing Trumpies attacking Holt for bringing Rosie O’Donnell up in the debate. Trump did that, and I’m not sure anyone up to and including Trump can figure out why he did that.
    .
    Seriously, this is at this point less like a political movement than it is an almost cult.These people have almost no connection to reality at all.

    1. Unfortunate but true Jerry.

      I have a friend I can;t really talk to right now because he is a diehard “Republicans can do no wrong, Trump is great” and he will not hear or accept even proof of when Trump is wrong or caught in a lie.

      This sort of blind allegiance (on both the Dem and Rep side) are why America is turning into a šhìŧhølë and getting worse every day…

  6. Do we need to hold debates?

    Seriously? Do we need to hold them? When in this day and age where every candidate’s verbal quote and written quote and action and inaction is parsed and analyzed and spun and counter-spun on 24-Hour Media and Social Media and Media Websites?

    Other than tradition… I don’t see a reason. Candidates seem to now get up there and squabble and argue and point fingers. This has become more of a little kids debate, rather than two adults who should be leader of the biggest nation in the free world. It’s entertaining… But while it’s informative about their emotional range and how they deal with criticism and stress, it doesn’t tell us much about what they stand for anymore.

    Maybe the problem is the format. Maybe instead of giving them small amounts of time for a question on a wide variety of subjects, it should be 30 minutes for the coin toss winner to explain their platform. Then coin-toss loser has 30 minutes for their platform. Then Candidate A has 15 minutes for rebuttal. Then B has 15 minutes to rebut A’s rebuttal and reiterate their platform. That way they can talk as long as they want without the other candidate interrupting or taking potshots.

    As for the moderator. Their job is not to fact check. Instead, there will be 3 panelists, whose job it is to fact check. At the end of the two hours of candidates talking, there’s 5 minutes for fact checking discussion a la ESPN’s “Pardon the Interruption” Then each candidate had 5 minutes for their final remarks on WHY we should vote for them. It may be longer, but it’ll be more dignified.

    Because otherwise, we should treat it along the lines I said last night. As a boxing match. With an undercard debate and Michael Buffer saying, “LLLLLLLLLLLLLLET’S GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!”

      1. Anyone could miss Canada, all tucked away down there… 🙂

        Sorry, StarWolf, I did mean “Most Powerful”.

      2. To be fair, the US’s population is roughly 9 times that of Canada’s, making it the “biggest nation in the free world.”. And India, while a democracy/republic, it’s never really been considered a part of the “free world” (during the height of the Cold War, it considered itself the leader of the “non-aligned movement”–between the US-led “free world” and the Soviet-led “Communist bloc”).

  7. We have the kind of events you want. They’re called “interviews” and “press conferences.”

    And what happens when the moderator gets their “facts” wrong? Candy Crowley gave Obama a big boost in that debate when she asserted that Obama was right when he wasn’t, and Monday night Holt got the “stop and frisk” story wrong. See http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/27/audio-alan-dershowitz-fact-checks-lester-holts-fact-check-stop-frisk/ for details.

    And isn’t it coincidental how, in two consecutive campaigns, the moderators made big mistakes that benefited the Democrat? How odd.

  8. “And what happens when the moderator gets their “facts” wrong? Candy Crowley gave Obama a big boost in that debate when she asserted that Obama was right when he wasn’t,”
    .
    Romney claimed Obama refused to call the Benghazi attack of September 11 an “act of terror” for 14 days. Obama called it and acts like it “acts of terror” the next day.
    .
    So she and Obama were right.
    .
    Hey, you’ve lied about that for so long now I know it’s hard to let go, but maytbe you’re telling the truth here.
    .
    Nope.
    .
    You claim S&F wasn’t ruled unconstitutional?
    .
    “August 12, 2013, New York – In a landmark decision today, a federal court found the New York City Police Department’s highly controversial stop-and-frisk practices unconstitutional. In her thorough, 198-page ruling, Judge Shira Scheindlin found the NYPD’s practices to violate New Yorkers’ Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and also found that the practices were racially discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “
    https://ccrjustice.org/home/press-center/press-releases/landmark-decision-judge-rules-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices

    1. Always gotta make it personal, huh, Jerry? Gotta get in the digs and the insults, chum? Not a good look on you.

      Obama’s statement the day after Benghazi was so obscure that CNN (that’s the network that Candy Crowley works for) didn’t recognize it for such for such for quite some time. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2013/05/19/cnn-s-crowley-admits-obama-didn-t-call-benghazi-a-terror-attack/

      And it isn’t me saying that stop and frisk is Constitutional, it’s Alan Dershowitz. I have my issues with the guy, but he’s seen by many as a huge champion of individual rights. And if anyone can find a “right” and a “violation,” it’s him, so when he says that something is not an infringement, I’m inclined to give his word a bit more weight than I am to… well, someone like you.

      1. Except you don’t have to take my word for anything. I provided the words of the judge.
        .
        Oh, and you’re claiming you didn’t say something you said? How very Trump of you.
        .
        You made the claim Holt got it wrong. Then- in order to support that claim -you ignored the case ruling, ignored hundreds of news articles on it, and picked an article where they say, “Yeah, it was… But maybe it’s not because it’s nuanced.”
        .
        Sorry, but the ruling judge’s own words disagree with you.
        .
        And, dude… Breitbart? I can understand why one of your favorite go to sites is a “news” site founded by and in the image of a serial liar as well as one that’s amazingly managed to become even less legit since his death, but, please, come back when you something reputable to back your claims.

      2. I don’t recall ever pìššìņg in your corn flakes, Jerry, so I dunno how you got so much sand in your shorts over me. But I am actively disinterested in understanding your venom, so I’ll just ignore it.

        Anyway, the judge you’re citing was so out of tune with the actual law that the case was taken away from her by her superiors and was under appeal by the city when DeBlasio was elected and ordered the appeal dropped.

        And I chose the Breitbart link because it contained links to CNN itself, showing CNN’s own evolving stories on Crowley’s performance.

        As far as “questionable sources,” you cited the CCR. I presume you’re aware that one of their biggest causes is trying to free imprisoned terrorist abetter Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of helping her client communicate with his terrorist followers in Egypt.

      3. The exchange-

        Holt: “Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.”

        Trump: “No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge who was a very against police judge.”

        Sorry, but, again, you and Trump are full of it.

        The judge was not out of touch with the law. Stop and Frisk was fund unconstitutional in New York as executed by the police. It was found that they targeted blacks and Hispanics heavily, and that they did so- and this is key -without probable cause for the stops.

        You can spin and flail and flack for Trump all you want. It does not change the fact that Stop and Frisk was ruled unconstitutional in NY.

        And do you know how I know it had an impact outside of NY? Because even here in Virginia instruction on what they did wrong and how & why to avoid it got incorporated into our annual updates when going over Terry Stops and Consensual Encounters.

        But, hey, keep pretending reality isn’t what it is. Jay Tea 101 that.

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/28/donald-trump/debate-donald-trump-says-stop-and-frisk-constituti/

      4. Jerry, you’re really, really trying to make this a personal argument, and I deal with enough of that šhìŧ elsewhere. I will just conclude by saying that your source, Politifact, has been found repeatedly showing bias, and if you actually read the source you cited, you’d see that they judged that Trump was factually correct, but “false” because he didn’t mention some nuances On the other hand, Holt was wrong when he said that “stop and frisk” was ruled unconstitutional in New York, but he doesn’t get the “false” label because reasons.

      5. “but he doesn’t get the “false” label because reasons.”
        .
        Yes, Jay, and the reasons are clearly outlined.
        .
        Trump repeatedly cites New York as his Stop and Frisk poster child. The ruling in the case was that the stop and frisk procedure used in New York was unconstitutional. The stop and frisk procedure used in New York was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the 4th Amendment. It was also ruled against for unfairly targeting minorities at a far greater rate than whites.
        .
        It was made clear that the ruling was not meant to go against or undo Terry. It was made clear that it did not apply to stop and frisk where they were applying it properly. It was made clear that the form of stop and frisk and the techniques used and executed in New York by the police was in violation of the Constitution.
        .
        Trump: “Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn’t be having it.”
        .
        …..
        .
        HOLT: “Your two — your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men.
        .
        TRUMP: “No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it’s allowed.”
        .
        Trump cited New York’s stop and frisk.
        .
        Holt absolutely correctly pointed out that it was ruled unconstitutional in New York and cited one reason why it was.
        .
        Trump opened his mouth and spoke on something he knows almost nothing about and got it wrong.
        .
        Trump fans then went forth and insisted that up is down, black is white, hot is cold, and that Trump was right and Holt wrong.
        .
        Nope. Reality is not Trumpland. Trump got it wrong, Holt got it right, you continue to insist on deliberately ignoring facts and getting it wrong as well.
        .
        “I will just conclude by saying that your source, Politifact, has been found repeatedly showing bias”
        .
        Translation- “They keep pointing out facts that conservatives don’t like. Facts and reality have an obvious liberal bias. Why don’t they let conservatives have the lies they love?!?”
        .
        Because that’s the price of living in the real world.

  9. You know, I’m honestly not sure it matters at this point. Trump lies more than just about any candidate running for POTUS that I can remember in my lifetime. But talk to a trump supporter and they’ll tell you that Trump is an honest man and a real straight shooter.
    .
    There are two videos floating around right now. One is from the debate where Trump says he’s smart for not paying taxes. The other is from an hour later in the spin room. A reporter asks Trump about his saying he’s smart for not paying taxes. His response? He says he didn’t say that.
    .
    I’ve now been in conversations with Trump supporters who have seen both videos and have still argued that he was telling the truth and anything else is just liberal media spin.
    .
    These people make the Tea Party factions that hung on every word of the likes of Palin, Bachmann, and Cruz as the gospel truth come across as sane. This isn’t a political movement. It’s a cult. I have literally met crazy people and cult members who can be talked down from their delusions with less effort than the largest core group of Trump supporters can be separated from their fantasies.
    .
    Fact checking is a pointless endeavor with this crowd. No facts will ever change their minds.

    1. Is there a site with a decent collection of these “fact checks”, for both sides on the same site if possible?

      1. Thanks Roy.

        Found that in a Google search but no transcript at first.

        Then went home from work and tried it on my home computer and “Ta da!”, without corporate paranoia security, the transcript and notes appeared.

    2. “A reporter asks Trump about his saying he’s smart for not paying taxes. His response? He says he didn’t say that.”

      Bad as it is, it is worse because he’s hardly the only one who does this. Years back, ‘Lying’ Brian Mulroney, then Canada’s Conservative P.M., was giving a press conference and said something on some important topic. During the question part, he was asked about this. He denied having said it. A few minutes later, he said it again. A confused reporter later said “It must have been lost in translation from politician-ese to English.”

  10. And let us remember that impartial does not mean silent and subservient. It means equal treatment for each candidate. A forceful and dynamic moderator could easily achieve this.

    Of course, it wouldn’t SEEM impartial because Trump requires considerable handling, while Clinton was following the rules, sticking to facts (for the greatest part), being polite, and usually demonstrating good temperament.

  11. Just watched the Debate, it was so funny. It was a re-run shown last night called South Park S20 Ep03, it made so much sense.

  12. Hi Peter David, I can’t find a real anti-gun candidate; Stein is ‘just’ for “assault weapon ban”? I read you wanted to vote for a ‘real’ anti-gun candidate – me too! Like you I’m tired of the “background check… BS”!

    Richard

Comments are closed.