Posted on 10/14/2010 6:26:29 AM PDT by kevkrom
As such, I propose that there be a truly independent Debate Moderators Institute (DMI). Much like sport leagues have training for their game officials, the DMI would train debate moderators to be impartial arbiters of the debate events. Political campaigns would agree to hire the DMI and select a debate format, and the DMI would be responsible for providing the moderator and developing the debate questions. The DMI would also post a public review of each moderator's performance to ensure that they held accountable.
Moderators could come from any walk of life, though "celebrities" should generally be avoided. Debates are about the candidates, not the moderator. Potential moderators would need to be screened and then trained to ensure they can operate in a public setting and they are assertive enough to maintain control of the debate (and therefore can resist any attempts to be "bullied" by candidates).
While specific formats may call for slightly different methods, the DMI would generally use polling of both likely and registered voters to determine to issues that are most important to the electorate. The DMI would also factor in candidates' signature campaign issues where there is disagreement between candidates. Based on these issues, the types, numbers, and order of questions would be determined by the DMI and provided to the moderator. The moderator's job would be primarily limited to addressing the generated questions to the proper candidate(s) and enforcing any time limits and other debate rules.
Sounds good on paper, but unfortunately more people would tune in to watch the debate if Pam Anderson were moderating.
I’d rather see them on: Are you smarter than a 5th grader.
Or Who wants to be a millionaire show.
The main problem with the debate formats is that no one rates
them for did they answer the question, or as the most often do rattle off a meaningless portion of their stump speech.
The debate format also fails to show much of character traits.
If 0 was forced to show who he really was, he would not now be president.
Perhaps the understatement of the year. If debates were a baseball game where 95 mph fast balls are the norm, moderators are lobbing fluff balls at 20 mph in the middle of the strike zone. We need moderators who would ask candidates the same questions the public would ask, most of which--if I read the public's sentiment--would have the impact of a direct kick in the sprouts. When's the last time you heard as question like: "Mr. Democrat, you voted against extending the Bush tax cuts, while you Ms. GOP voted to extend them. Defend your position." Instead, we get questions like: "Do you like puppies?"
There’s a simpler way, and one which Republicans already have the power to enforce.
Stop agreeing to debates where the moderator is some leftist MSM talking head. If they don’t have say on the moderator, demand that both sides agree, or both sides get to pick one, and don’t pretend that some news anchor is unbiased.
Also, allow each side to submit questions. Or have the questions provided in advance, and object to biased questions.
There’s nothing stopping Republicans from demanding terms like this now, except a lack of balls.
How about if the debates had an ombudsman? After each answer, the ombudsman could point out the lies. In cases where there are lies of omission, they could fill in the rest of the truth.
I consider that the be the jobs of the candidates/campaigns.
The whole point of this proposal would be to provide unbiased moderators that fit this bill. By having an outside, independent group running it, it blows away the idea of any form of "cover" for any candidate to claim that a debate is unfair due to choice of moderator.
I have no illusion that such a scheme would (initially, at least) favor Republicans, if only by leveling the playing field that is so slanted against them. Something like the DMI would be something to point to to say "my opponent won't agree to debate me with an unbiased moderator" to shame them into participating.
That should read: "I have no illusion about the fact that such a scheme...", as in, I know this would benefit Republicans (and conservatives in other parties) primarily in the short term, as the current debates are so slanted leftwards.
Having watched the Delaware debate last night, I instinctively was to agree, but here is a different idea which I prefer. Train the candidates to give ‘put down’ responses that do not create negative reactions in the audiences. Wolf Blitzer was an utter disgrace; perhaps he should have been asked why he was being so aggressive - not a complaint, just a question.
While it is a “hot-fix”, who the moderator is and his/her behavior should not be part of the debate. If it is, then the debate has lost its way.
I realize that was the point. What I'm saying is that Republicans can demand unbiased moderators now, if they would just stop going along with the fiction that MSM reporters are unbiased. It doesn't need the creation of some institute, it only needs candidates willing to stand up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.