Posted on 06/26/2024 4:11:10 AM PDT by MtnClimber
The impending Presidential debate on Thursday is colliding with a recurring rhetorical problem: the Presidential debate moderators. Since the inception of televised presidential debates in 1960 with the debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the problem of debate moderators has been persistent. In the academic ideal of debate, moderators would exert no argumentative influence upon the debate. Moderators would, as the term implies, mitigate the partisan excesses potential to such an event. This is a profound concern since presidential campaigns are exerting some of the most powerful ideological convictions of the nation. Presently, concerns are raised by the Trump campaign and its supporters that Dana Bash and Jake Tapper will not be fair as the CNN moderators in this first Presidential debate of 2024. Those concerns have historical foundation both specifically and generally. Without correction of the problem of journalist moderators, the public will continue to escalate the sense of partisan frustration and grow increasingly impatient for the obvious solution of more dispassionate and fair debates.
In the 21st century, journalist debate moderators have exclusively occupied the presidential debate moderator position. Despite a proliferation of rules governing the debates, there are no rules governing the journalist moderators. This in the past 25 years leads to a growing domination of the journalist moderators. In 2020, Fox News journalist Chris Wallace surpassed the 25% of time speaking threshold. In the 20th century, moderators often spoke less than 10% of the time. The lengthy questions offered by journalists combined with excessively short answer times such as 90 seconds create a communication context ripe for misunderstanding and misstatements. This compression of candidate time and expansion of journalist speaking time is an important contributor to the volatile conduct of Biden and Trump in debate number one of 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I wonder if YouTuber Jesús Enrique Rosas, The Body Language Guy, will be doing the so-called debate...
I’d love to get his take on it.
If the electorate supported Deep State, Deep State wouldn’t have to steal elections, would it...
The debates should be held in North Korea with North Korean moderators.
That would be fairer than the current arrangement.
Using the stolen election of 2020 as the basis for your analysis of advertising is quaint.
It certainly made it close enough for them to get away with the steal.
“But that’s still not actually a debate. It is in interview panel.”
Well said.
This debate is going to be all about Democrap focus tested questions, so Abortion and Convicted Felon.
One problem on the convicted felon. There has to be sentencing before the Dems can use that one.
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.