How to Moderate Debates
The question of who should moderate the presidential debates has been raised lately in light of how things went with Gwen Ifill. The notion that she might be biased in favor of the Obama campaign given her upcoming book on the subject was not without merit, and certainly it is because of that potential bias that she was so easily bullied into being overly submissive to Sarah Palin. Of course, while this did not make for the best debate, her restraint is certainly more admirable than the behavior of, say, George Stephanopolous during the Democratic primary debate.
But who would be a better moderator? Mostly, political pundits are chosen, but, as you have not doubt noticed, they are rarely without bias (the upcoming debate with Tom Brokaw as a moderator is likely to skew very much towards McCain). The standards of political journalism in this country, especially on tv, do not favor neutrality, as it is seldom entertaining. So we need someone who is not a journalist.
There are two ways to go here. Ideally they could both be used for a total of three debates.
The first is to go with someone who can truly and skillfully give us neutral moderation.* For this I suggest a high school debate coach. Certainly he or she would not put up with deviations from the questions asked, or fallacies ad folksium.
The second is to go with two different people, with two extremes of bias. BUT rather than pick two people who have a stake in each candidate respectively, pick two people who may lean more towards each of the candidates, but have specific stake in neither of them succeeding. For this the best option is to use third party candidates, or other political extremists from each end of the spectrum, ideally who actively do not support either party. For the former, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. For the latter, Ron Paul and Jello Biafra.
To make things more interesting, perhaps the debates could be placed in front of audiences specifically hostile to the moderator's bias. A liberal debate in front of southern conservatives, a conservative debate in front of San Francisco liberals, a logical high school-style debate in a church.
*Possibly the dullest combination of words ever
But who would be a better moderator? Mostly, political pundits are chosen, but, as you have not doubt noticed, they are rarely without bias (the upcoming debate with Tom Brokaw as a moderator is likely to skew very much towards McCain). The standards of political journalism in this country, especially on tv, do not favor neutrality, as it is seldom entertaining. So we need someone who is not a journalist.
There are two ways to go here. Ideally they could both be used for a total of three debates.
The first is to go with someone who can truly and skillfully give us neutral moderation.* For this I suggest a high school debate coach. Certainly he or she would not put up with deviations from the questions asked, or fallacies ad folksium.
The second is to go with two different people, with two extremes of bias. BUT rather than pick two people who have a stake in each candidate respectively, pick two people who may lean more towards each of the candidates, but have specific stake in neither of them succeeding. For this the best option is to use third party candidates, or other political extremists from each end of the spectrum, ideally who actively do not support either party. For the former, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. For the latter, Ron Paul and Jello Biafra.
To make things more interesting, perhaps the debates could be placed in front of audiences specifically hostile to the moderator's bias. A liberal debate in front of southern conservatives, a conservative debate in front of San Francisco liberals, a logical high school-style debate in a church.
*Possibly the dullest combination of words ever
posted by Mephisto at 1:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home