Media See Moderators as Soft, Liberal

CNSNews.com -- On the eve of Thursday's presidential debate, media watchdog groups on both the left and right panned the four journalists who will moderate the contests.

The left-leaning Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting viewed the journalists as lightweights who won't ask tough questions. At the conservative Media Research Center, the parent of CNSNews.com, all four moderators are seen as possessing a liberal bias.

There was little fanfare when the Commission on Presidential Debates chose PBS' Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill, ABC's Charles Gibson and CBS' Bob Schieffer in August. But with the stakes high for both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, the moderators are now in the spotlight.

"It's not so much a question of the partisanship or the ideology of the moderators," said Peter Hart, a media analyst at Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. "I think the real problem is the fact they play along with this debate model, which is engineered for the benefit of the candidates.

"Candidates want to avoid tough questions," Hart added, "so they create rules and select moderators who will create the environment they want for themselves."

Hart was particularly critical of Lehrer, host of each of the three presidential debates in 2000. On several occasions during those debates, Lehrer made sure then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and his challenger, then Vice President Al Gore, stuck to the script when they deviated from the rules.

"It's not so much that Lehrer is biased, it's just that he is timid," Hart said. "I think that's what you could say most of the moderators. They are timid questioners and timid interviewers, and that's why they're selected."

The nature of the moderators' questions is what concerns the Media Research Center's director of research, Rich Noyes, who said Bush faces a tougher challenge heading into the debates.

"Imagine if you're a candidate and all the questions you get are from a mildly left-of-center perspective," Noyes said. "If you're George W. Bush, you have to spend time in your answers challenging the premise. Whereas if you're John Kerry, you're coming from the same perspective as the questioner, and you get to spend far more time making your case."

Thursday's debate, which will focus on foreign policy, features Lehrer, host of PBS' "NewsHour." Lehrer was generally praised by fellow journalists in 2000 for his performance, although the MRC noted his past liberal slant in a Media Reality Check it released Wednesday.

During the second presidential debate in 2000, Lehrer asked no questions from a conservative perspective, instead probing the candidates on racial profiling, hate crimes and homosexuals, said Tim Graham, the MRC's director of media analysis.

"We're not saying they can't ask an aggressive question from the left-wing perspective to Bush," Graham said. "The problem is they never ask a tough question from the right to John Kerry."

The other moderators - Ifill, Gibson and Schieffer - haven't avoided criticism. Ifill will moderate the Oct. 5 vice-presidential debate, while Gibson will oversee the town-hall format on Oct. 8 and Schieffer handles the duties at the Oct. 13 domestic policy debate.

Talk show host Michael Medved, a media critic, said he's most worried about Ifill's potential to ask biased questions. He said Ifill's performance on her PBS show, "Washington Week," suggests she leans to the left.

Medved offered praise for ABC's Charles Gibson, co-anchor of "Good Morning America," for his dustup with Kerry on an April 26 segment of the morning show. Gibson accused Kerry of lying about a 1971 incident in which he either threw away his medals or ribbons.

As for the debate showdowns themselves, Medved predicted both candidates would probably get a fair shake from the moderators given the recent flap involving another television journalist, CBS News anchor Dan Rather.

"I would imagine that this is such a career moment and everyone is so Dan Rather-sensitive that we are going to see tough questions for both sides," Medved said. "I think [Bush advisers] Jim Baker and Karl Rove are anticipating that as well."

The recent controversy involving Rather, in which "60 Minutes" aired discredited National Guard memos on President Bush's service, has prompted some calls for Shieffer's removal from the Oct. 13 debate. A website, BoycottCBS.com, suggested NBC's Tim Russert or former CNN anchor Bernard Shaw as possible replacements.

Russert's absence from the debates caught the attention of Jack Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. Pitney said even though Russert might come from a liberal background, he's equally tough on liberals as he is on conservatives.

Neither candidate - Bush nor Kerry - probably wanted Russert as a moderator, FAIR's Hart speculated.

"Someone like Tim Russert is thought to be rather aggressive in his questioning," Hart said. "Whether or not you think he is in fact aggressive is a matter of opinion. But the parties agree on one thing, and that is he's going to likely be tough so better to exclude him from the list."

At the end of the day, Pitney said Bush was likely to face the tougher questions, but that's something his advisers have known for weeks. As a former GOP research director, Pitney said each moderator's track record has been thoroughly analyzed.

"I think they will all try to be fair," Pitney said of the moderators, "but their definition of fairness comes from a liberal perspective."

"I think they will all try to be fair," Pitney said of the moderators, "but their definition of fairness comes from a liberal perspective."

That will make it all the more amusing when the leftist press tries to make excuses after Bush rips sKerry to shreds.

45 minutes into the debate, W can't seem to get off defense.
Kerry is definitely the better speaker. Bush sounds at times as if he is cornered. Kerry speaks nonsense but he says it gravely. Neither smiles.

Here are my thoughts on this debate:

1. I don't think Bush can loose any support on the foreign policy debate, his base is firmly behind him in the war on terror.

2. I don't think any of the leftist peaceniks could ever be convinced to vote for Bush, they don't want us to defeat terrorism. However, they could begin to see Kerry as too militant and move more toward Nader.

3. Bush was wise to have the foreign policy debate first. In two weeks none of the undecideds will remember any of it. The undecided vote will make up their minds based on how homeland security and Iraq look right before the election.

4. The leftist media has done too good a job convincing people that Iraq is a quagmire, nothing Bush can say will change that. So it's better to deal with this issue now and let it fade.

4. The leftist media has done too good a job convincing people that Iraq is a quagmire, nothing Bush can say will change that. So it's better to deal with this issue now and let it fade.

Well Said!
Good Point!

Bush is being disappointing as hell. He is breaking the basic rule of this kind of debate. You don't get trapped into defending against the other guy's charges. W is doing nothing but defend. He does not have time to answer all the charges that Kerry raises. He shouldn't even try. Reagan knew that. Kennedy knew that. Who prepped him? Lockhart?

I'm watching the debate. Why does a moderator try to state the presidents position or thoughts? This is very one sided. The main theme of this debate is "Mr. President please explain yourself?" Where are the questions toward Kerry. What the F*** is going on? Leherner just asked the president "you used the word "truth" again" in one of his comments in the debate! When does a moderator become a commentator? What's going on? Freepers? Does anyone have the total time the President was allowed to speak? I have a gut feeling that Kerry was given at least 1/3 more time to talk then Bush courtsey of Mr. Lehner. The Bush campaign needs to rethink the debates! Two moderators. Anyone and O'Reilly or Hume or Snow. This is a set up.

Some of Bush's answers sound like those "stream of consciousness" things. Kerry lies and twists the truth but sounds presidential doing it, and does a better job of remembering what the question was.

GW needs to practice sounding cogent, confident, and convincing, and presenting his facts and reasoning in a logical ordered manner. If he does, he'll score points because the facts are on his side.

There was something that seemed week about W's responses, and I think I figured out what it was. A good speech has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion (tell em what you're going to tell em, then tell em, then tell em what you told em). Sometimes his answers just trail off into nothingness.

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.