All bad choices. Not one of them can control the "debate" and they will allow Trump to turn it into a food fight.
6
Four debates? Is there no sympathy for the voting public? What can't we learn about these two in 15 minutes? Christ, is there anything more to know about Trump after his first four or five words?
8
Fox News gets to moderate the final debate. That's a nice nod to Fox, allowing it to be in the position of leaving the last impression. Doesn't bode well given the short-attention span of the electorate. Fox-hunt indeed!
10
I'm pretty certain that Martha Radiate moderated a Romney/Obama debate so it would not be her first time.
1
Please explain how this group is not controversial to Trump supporters; a black man, two women, a gay man, and a white man... Seems to me that the Trump campaign will not be too happy about this panel.
1
One thing they have to stop is that nonsense about "I was mentioned in that candidate's remark therefore I get to say something RIGHT NOW." It turned the GOP debates into a free-for-all. Granted there will currently only be two people, but stick to having each answer the question at hand in turn. And yes, stage the setting so that the audience is not seen nor heard. Better still, do it in a studio with only the candidates and hosts. This ain't a Seinfeld taping.
13
The issue will remain - will the moderators be in control and hold control? Can they? Holt is a lightweight...but I guess some people like him. I think he'll let things unravel. He's too into his "spectacle" TV reporting these days. Raddatz, she's got skills...but will Trump steam roll her less then movie star looks? And throw her off? Cooper needs to stay on point, and not let either candidate avoid answering, and if so call them on it each time. Wallace, when he moved to Fox he lost my confidence. He might as well as gone to Entertainment Tonight.
Its funny that each time these debates come up, we all expect that this time we'll get a real and honest debate. One based on the actual rules of debate, where logic and structure prevail. Then it never manifests...and we sigh and walk away. Humming..."same old story...same old song and dance, my friends..."
I however wonder why, but for a few moments among all these months of nonsense we cant get at least 4 hours of content from the very people wanting to hold the most important position in our nation? Why? Just 4 hours.
I do expect Hillary to want to do that...as she should know being the calm and collected and serious candidate will likely win her those damned undecided independents, and frustrated moderate Republicans.
I just hope the message gets heard over Trump's klaxon-like pontificating and outright lying.
But my hope for a real debate is ever so thin these days...
Its funny that each time these debates come up, we all expect that this time we'll get a real and honest debate. One based on the actual rules of debate, where logic and structure prevail. Then it never manifests...and we sigh and walk away. Humming..."same old story...same old song and dance, my friends..."
I however wonder why, but for a few moments among all these months of nonsense we cant get at least 4 hours of content from the very people wanting to hold the most important position in our nation? Why? Just 4 hours.
I do expect Hillary to want to do that...as she should know being the calm and collected and serious candidate will likely win her those damned undecided independents, and frustrated moderate Republicans.
I just hope the message gets heard over Trump's klaxon-like pontificating and outright lying.
But my hope for a real debate is ever so thin these days...
11
Well with these lightweights Trump will be his usual buffoon and there will be the same old Republican nonsense just like their primaries where he namecalled everyone and bullied his way through his time slot. They can't handle him and frankly it's a waste of time. He doesn't even have a clue about how to actually debate. Its demeaning to Clinton.
15
US presidential debates have turned into sideshows, and this is Trump's only chance at salvaging his flagging campaign, if that is even possible at this final stretch.
When Trump loses to Hillary he will claim it was "rigged", and he will have some validity in his statement, though his stupidity will trump all other considerations.
The debates were far more impartial when conducted by the League of Women Voters. Now they are in the hands of a combined Democrat/Republican committee. Really? Is that fairer? What happens when the two major parties make the rules? Do you think there is any bias in shutting out Johnson and Stein? Of course the answer is an unqualified "Yes".
As for the format, well, the last thing it invites is true debate. It is designed to prevent it. I'd advice anyone who has access to other countries debates to check out say the British or French way. They are truly debates. They go on for hours, and yes for seniors like Hillary and Trump they get to sit, which makes sense since we are more interested in their brain activity not their stamina and their ability to stand (FDR did just fine leading us from a wheelchair).
In these debates, there are meters which clock each candidates time speaking and they do tend to even out. In the end, the viewer is left with a real feel as to the knowledge and positions of each candidate. There is no audience to cheer on their fave. Closest comparison in the US is the Charlie Rose show. It works well.
DD
Manhattan
When Trump loses to Hillary he will claim it was "rigged", and he will have some validity in his statement, though his stupidity will trump all other considerations.
The debates were far more impartial when conducted by the League of Women Voters. Now they are in the hands of a combined Democrat/Republican committee. Really? Is that fairer? What happens when the two major parties make the rules? Do you think there is any bias in shutting out Johnson and Stein? Of course the answer is an unqualified "Yes".
As for the format, well, the last thing it invites is true debate. It is designed to prevent it. I'd advice anyone who has access to other countries debates to check out say the British or French way. They are truly debates. They go on for hours, and yes for seniors like Hillary and Trump they get to sit, which makes sense since we are more interested in their brain activity not their stamina and their ability to stand (FDR did just fine leading us from a wheelchair).
In these debates, there are meters which clock each candidates time speaking and they do tend to even out. In the end, the viewer is left with a real feel as to the knowledge and positions of each candidate. There is no audience to cheer on their fave. Closest comparison in the US is the Charlie Rose show. It works well.
DD
Manhattan
1
If Trump objected to an American judge who is the child of Mexican immigrants because he wants to build a wall with Mexico, will he not object to a gay moderator given the anti-gay platform in opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage, he is running on? Just wondering.
6
Far too many Americans don't know what's at stake during this election cycle. Some claim that all politicians are all alike. Others assume that if one candidate is rude, offensive, and insulting that he is exhibiting real leadership qualities. But those folks are driven by another imperative. People in the know refer to this phenomenon as the "authoritarian impulse." Where voters like that believe, either consciously or unconsciously, that "order" is central to their lives. People in that category like to follow orders, even blindly, often resulting historically in tragic consequences. When watching this staged event later in the month, viewers should realize that Trump's handlers want to convince you that authoritarianism is not only good for you, but also good for the United States. The public must be careful about treading down that dangerous and slippery slope or face the harsh judgment of history.
10
I sure hope the Clinton campaign are gaming these events with some outside-the-box thinking. Trump is not going to allow himself to be meekly...trumped...by Hillary in a fair debate. I would not put it past Trump to get some hotheads into the audience to create a ruckus (or maybe even a fight?) that would attempt to a) throw Hillary off her stride, and b) allow Trump to do his commander-shtick in front of tens of milliions of viewers, commandeering the microphones to get security involved and/or to appeal to viewers (and live crowd) by blaming Hillary's supporters.
Honestly, these debates in particular, should NOT be done in front of a live audience. It should be the candidates, the moderator, and the television crew. That's it. I fear a circus.
Honestly, these debates in particular, should NOT be done in front of a live audience. It should be the candidates, the moderator, and the television crew. That's it. I fear a circus.
12
So Donald Trump is going to have his biggest audience ever - probably 80 million people - coming after a fiasco series of GOP debates which saw Trump resorting to progressively more and more inflammatory antics to grab attention and then bragging about it so he could grab some more.
The moderators of the debates are going to be Trump's primary adversaries in each debate because Trump won't be trying to win a debate with Clinton, he will be milking each event like WWE broadcast to generate attention for his brand.
Trump knows he has no chance of winning the election, he never really wanted to anyway. The objects has always been unpaid media for the Trump brand. So the debates are the high point for Trump, when the greatest numbers of people will be watching - and he will be using each debates to generate higher ratings for the next one.
The moderators for these debates had better have a rehearsed strategy for what to do if Trump pulls a cream pie from under the podium to throw in Hillary's face - because we know there is absolutely nothing this man won't do for attention.
I expect Trump to shout Hillary down, interrupt her, insult her and talk over her all night - unless the moderator has the gravitas to shut him down. Hillary has never been impolite to anyone in public ever - so the WWE antics will all be coming from one side of the stage.
I don't know what the moderators are going to do to control him, but I hope they see their careers as dependant on being able to.
The moderators of the debates are going to be Trump's primary adversaries in each debate because Trump won't be trying to win a debate with Clinton, he will be milking each event like WWE broadcast to generate attention for his brand.
Trump knows he has no chance of winning the election, he never really wanted to anyway. The objects has always been unpaid media for the Trump brand. So the debates are the high point for Trump, when the greatest numbers of people will be watching - and he will be using each debates to generate higher ratings for the next one.
The moderators for these debates had better have a rehearsed strategy for what to do if Trump pulls a cream pie from under the podium to throw in Hillary's face - because we know there is absolutely nothing this man won't do for attention.
I expect Trump to shout Hillary down, interrupt her, insult her and talk over her all night - unless the moderator has the gravitas to shut him down. Hillary has never been impolite to anyone in public ever - so the WWE antics will all be coming from one side of the stage.
I don't know what the moderators are going to do to control him, but I hope they see their careers as dependant on being able to.
13
With the blatant corporate media host manipulation of the debates in the primaries, there is little hope that the electorate comes away more educated. Get ready for 30 sec sound bites and rambling non-answers. That's all these two candidates seem to be capable of doing.
2
Holt's "interview" of Trump from Trump Tower was an embarrassment and an indictment of what now passes for journalism. Soft questions. Non-responsive talking points. No follow-up. No Walter Cronkites here.
8
The trouble is journalists can't be real journalists anymore. They can only play journalists on television. It's not them, it's the system.
See film "Network."
See film "Network."
4
I agree with comments that there should be no audience applause during the actual debate and the moderators must have the courage & resources to control & correct the extreme inaccuracies & "un-debate" like behavior - unless this is a tightly run event it is nothing more than a school yard brawl.
How about asking Mr Trump how in fact he plans to work within budgetary restraints, congress, and our existing laws in building his so called Wall?
How about asking Mr Trump how in fact he plans to work within budgetary restraints, congress, and our existing laws in building his so called Wall?
4
There will not be a debate if the model developed by Republicans cannot be prohibited. Audience/mob participation cannot be tolerated, raising voices, vile behavior, name calling, exceeding time limits and interrupting cannot be permitted. Explicit enforceable rules must be established and shared with the public before any debate happens.
Foreign affairs, financial markets, and violent behavior by certain groups will hinge on the behavior and observation of the rules will shape more than the fate of Trump and Clinton. Provincial attitudes cannot be allowed to reveal themselves on this international stage.
Foreign affairs, financial markets, and violent behavior by certain groups will hinge on the behavior and observation of the rules will shape more than the fate of Trump and Clinton. Provincial attitudes cannot be allowed to reveal themselves on this international stage.
2
The political affiliations of the moderators matter little, because, in reality, they always seem to come through even for the most experienced media people. What really matters is keeping control of the audience and the debate without interjecting the moderators personal beliefs. This will be a very interesting debate because Trump will deal with broad generalities with details to be filled in later after discussions with a team that is yet to be identified or assembled. Clinton on the other hand will be detail oriented totally unwilling to see the possibility that all of the details she talks about need to get through Congress before they can become a reality which many of them will not, at least in the form in which she wishes to see.
The real choice before the electorate is do we want more of the same or do we want something different. Clinton represents more of the same. Trump represents something different.
Not all changes good, of course, but when you're not pleased with the current situation, the only way to make it different is to engage in change. That is what the debate should really boil down to, namely, what changes do we want, how are we going to get them, and who is best suited to bring them about.
The real choice before the electorate is do we want more of the same or do we want something different. Clinton represents more of the same. Trump represents something different.
Not all changes good, of course, but when you're not pleased with the current situation, the only way to make it different is to engage in change. That is what the debate should really boil down to, namely, what changes do we want, how are we going to get them, and who is best suited to bring them about.
I hope these moderators will be tough, or The Donald will run all over top of them. I'm not even sure the debates will be worth watching. I believe HRC will be well prepared for a substantive discussion on the issues, while DT will behave like he's on his own reality TV show, talking over everyone with his flight of ideas, not answering the questions, no substance, taunts, and insults. I will attempt to watch, but if it goes down that way, forget it, especially since I can barely stand to listen to him speak anyway.
9
Why not add people who actually have courage and insight and originality and actual understanding to the questioners. Maybe Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden. Obviously it would be better if they could be part of the debate itself. But no need to get greedy
4
Trump Says He Supports Slashing Social Security From A ‘Moral Standpoint’
Social Security has been called the third rail of American politics: Touch it and you die. And if that is indeed the case, then Donald Trump might want to start picking out a nice casket.
Bloomberg is reporting that when the GOP nominee met with Paul Ryan on May 12 he told the House Speaker that he does indeed favor cutting Social Security, but he’s afraid to say so publicly because it would doom his chances in November.
Ask Trump if he plans on slashing Social Security.
Social Security has been called the third rail of American politics: Touch it and you die. And if that is indeed the case, then Donald Trump might want to start picking out a nice casket.
Bloomberg is reporting that when the GOP nominee met with Paul Ryan on May 12 he told the House Speaker that he does indeed favor cutting Social Security, but he’s afraid to say so publicly because it would doom his chances in November.
Ask Trump if he plans on slashing Social Security.
12
Alex Trebeck should host and it should be a Jeopardy game. Topics should be based on information a president should know. Of course, since Jeopardy has three contestants, there would be a third party candidate participating.
10
Interesting selection - certainly a nod toward a parity. That said, would love to have seen more of a gender and racial balance ( 2 women/2 men - - perhaps a Hispanic woman journalist ?)in this selection - especially given Trump's proclivity toward misogyny in his interaction with confident, smart women who know how to hold onto their positions and intellect.
I, too, surprisingly have been largely unimpressed by Anderson Cooper's journalistic skill-set during this presidential news cycle - he acts as if he is in awe of or is, perhaps, intimidated by his home town boy of Trump. In any case he consistently lets Trump off the hook and leaves the viewer wondering why....and then brings on Trumps consigliere and former campaign manager Cory L. as a "commentator" who just happens to suck up all the air on screen
I, too, surprisingly have been largely unimpressed by Anderson Cooper's journalistic skill-set during this presidential news cycle - he acts as if he is in awe of or is, perhaps, intimidated by his home town boy of Trump. In any case he consistently lets Trump off the hook and leaves the viewer wondering why....and then brings on Trumps consigliere and former campaign manager Cory L. as a "commentator" who just happens to suck up all the air on screen
6
It would be very appropriate to have Joe Rogan as a moderate and have a Fear Factor episode
3
Chris Wallace is neither an impartial nor a credible journalist. Association with Fox undermines any and all claims to either credibility or impartiality. Wallace's own father told him so before Morley Safer died.
22
2000: " George W. Bush defied the caricature of himself as a lightweight by holding his own against Al Gore."
At the time, commentators said he had won a draw by 'exceeding expectations.'
It took 16 years, but this lesson has now been learned. Now we have a candidate of whom nobody expects much, not even his own party. The only remaining question is about the 'exceeding' part.
At the time, commentators said he had won a draw by 'exceeding expectations.'
It took 16 years, but this lesson has now been learned. Now we have a candidate of whom nobody expects much, not even his own party. The only remaining question is about the 'exceeding' part.
7
After watching all the news CNN, CNBC, NBC, FOX, in all areas, I see who is fair and not, I see who have made there picks. So went the debates starts, Will they be fair to the both, Trump and Clinton, Also pick the right question that the american people what to hear. The debates should be serious and to the point, I want to hear what they can do for our american people and don't say one thing and do something diffent. I have seen this to many times, have seen to many lies so far and it is not good, If they can't show me the change they can bring to this, debate, and it is just the same old same of stuff, what i am seeing now, They will not get my vote.
1
Given what we know about the debaters, it is imperative that it is made absolutely clear that the moderators are in control, and that they do control the debates according to the rules and timing. Otherwise it will be a circus and a waste of everybodys' time.
If the first debate goes poorly, they will lose an audience for the subsequent ones.
If the first debate goes poorly, they will lose an audience for the subsequent ones.
5
Three open democrats, and one republican.
4
My gosh! There's a post in here that says there should be a PBS moderator. A Latino group wants a Latino moderator. There was an op ed in the Washington Post written a Millennial saying there had to be a Millennial moderator. I'm sure there a faction from Game of Thrones that wants a dwarf moderator. And one that says the commission is prejudiced against dragons. Silly me, thinking the criteria should be the moderator's work as a journalist, not as a representative of any group. And while we're at it, there's no fictional journalist listed. "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it." Howard Beale or bust!
9
Authoritarianism. Political scientists use the term authoritarianism to describe a way of governing that values order and control over personal freedom. A government run by authoritarianism is usually headed by a dictator.
From a national poll conducted at the end of December 2015, it was found that the most significant factor in who votes for Trump is “authoritarianism” followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.”
“Authoritarians OBEY. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.”
In the poll “a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.” (Politico)
How do you think Trump would answer the questions above? Worse yet, why would any American family want Trump to determine how their children are raised? The questions above should be included in the debates.
From a national poll conducted at the end of December 2015, it was found that the most significant factor in who votes for Trump is “authoritarianism” followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.”
“Authoritarians OBEY. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.”
In the poll “a set of four simple survey questions that political scientists have employed since 1992 to measure inclination toward authoritarianism. These questions pertain to child-rearing: whether it is more important for the voter to have a child who is respectful or independent; obedient or self-reliant; well-behaved or considerate; and well-mannered or curious. Respondents who pick the first option in each of these questions are strongly authoritarian.” (Politico)
How do you think Trump would answer the questions above? Worse yet, why would any American family want Trump to determine how their children are raised? The questions above should be included in the debates.
1
One problem and tricks of trumps is he drops these hugely stupid offensive verbal bombs almost daily, then reasonable people find a need to address them, to show them as stupid or meaningless, wasting time and breathe. He should simply be ignored.
3
First, there is never a "debate".
It's parallel conversations: "I think we should leave North America." "No, I believe God created Camden in 7 days."
Second, these people are all half or semi halfwits.
Can we actually have a non-commercial, non-political person moderate all of the events?
How about a National Lottery ?
It's parallel conversations: "I think we should leave North America." "No, I believe God created Camden in 7 days."
Second, these people are all half or semi halfwits.
Can we actually have a non-commercial, non-political person moderate all of the events?
How about a National Lottery ?
3
"Even in relatively normal election cycles, moderators are under intense scrutiny from the candidates — and their surrogates — who will freely point out any hint of bias. Questions perceived as either too soft or too hard-hitting can earn a day’s worth of headlines."
And that is the problem right there. Fearful, timid moderators, probably hamstrung by the commercial networks that employ them. Networks are most afraid of losing advertisers, revenue, audiences, & phony lawsuits intended to intimidate and squelch serious questions.
These are the wrong people to moderate our presidential debates. I remember when the League of Women Voters used to run the presidential debates, and we actually had candidates debating each other, rather than evading, pouncing with prepared zingers, and showing off to divert attention.
How about having neutral moderators, real professionals from the BBC or CBC moderate.
Also, you can't argue with the umps and refs in sports or you get a technical, so the candidates' staff, lawyers, and PR spinners should be given "technicals" for harassing the debate organizers and moderators.
We could do a lot better with our presidential campaigns and debates. Who is stopping us?
And that is the problem right there. Fearful, timid moderators, probably hamstrung by the commercial networks that employ them. Networks are most afraid of losing advertisers, revenue, audiences, & phony lawsuits intended to intimidate and squelch serious questions.
These are the wrong people to moderate our presidential debates. I remember when the League of Women Voters used to run the presidential debates, and we actually had candidates debating each other, rather than evading, pouncing with prepared zingers, and showing off to divert attention.
How about having neutral moderators, real professionals from the BBC or CBC moderate.
Also, you can't argue with the umps and refs in sports or you get a technical, so the candidates' staff, lawyers, and PR spinners should be given "technicals" for harassing the debate organizers and moderators.
We could do a lot better with our presidential campaigns and debates. Who is stopping us?
6
(AsP) Donald Trump, while writing in a note book, was overseen writing how he believes that he can “save” America. He writes in his notes that he wants to “sell” a state. The security service man that saw the writing quit and found outside employment.
Ask Donald Trump which state he plans on selling.
Ask Donald Trump which state he plans on selling.
4
The real question in dealing with a narcissist like Trump is what is “what is your goal in interacting with him”? Is it to connect and communicate with him or is it to break him down and play against his fears.
Narcissists fear that people will find them lacking and live with the paralyzing fear that they’ll somehow be deemed unworthy or unlovable, but when this becomes a horrifying reality narcissist have learned to ignore, suppress, deny, project, and disavow their vulnerabilities in their attempts to change “who they are” in their interactions (Trump being different people on the phone) in an attempt to gain acceptance. Narcissists need people to be attracted to their actions not to themselves and they are frozen with fear when people aren't attracted to their actions anymore leaving them with the belief that they are flawed. Their fear is usually expressed as anger, in intense, bold, intimidating ways, while blaming others but without them actually realizing that they are acting this way. Narcissist’s constant anger about their mistakes causes them to have numerous failed relationships (Trump has been married three times with ex-wife stating that he raped her). To Narcissists, people are things. “Playing people” is what narcissists do whenever they are not sleeping.
I would behaviorally modify Trump by only acknowledging his actions that support Hillary. His greatest fear is being poor. Mention anything about him losing his money.
Narcissists fear that people will find them lacking and live with the paralyzing fear that they’ll somehow be deemed unworthy or unlovable, but when this becomes a horrifying reality narcissist have learned to ignore, suppress, deny, project, and disavow their vulnerabilities in their attempts to change “who they are” in their interactions (Trump being different people on the phone) in an attempt to gain acceptance. Narcissists need people to be attracted to their actions not to themselves and they are frozen with fear when people aren't attracted to their actions anymore leaving them with the belief that they are flawed. Their fear is usually expressed as anger, in intense, bold, intimidating ways, while blaming others but without them actually realizing that they are acting this way. Narcissist’s constant anger about their mistakes causes them to have numerous failed relationships (Trump has been married three times with ex-wife stating that he raped her). To Narcissists, people are things. “Playing people” is what narcissists do whenever they are not sleeping.
I would behaviorally modify Trump by only acknowledging his actions that support Hillary. His greatest fear is being poor. Mention anything about him losing his money.
3
Chris Wallace was a poor choice. He is a right-wing partisan and has shown little interest in being objective in any of his Sunday shows.
19
As it turns out, Mr. Trump might have had a choice in selecting who would and who wouldn't be moderators. Please see the link below:
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/02/trump-s-efforts-influence-debat...
https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/09/02/trump-s-efforts-influence-debat...
2
You can go to the link below (Commission on Presidential Debates) to read up on the format of the debates, and how the questions will have been thought up and how they'' be presented.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=2016debates
3
My suggestion would be for 2 moderators for each debate.
They could alternate as moderator. While one is moderating, the other could carefully listen to check the facts. Alternatively, the listening moderator could have a small earphone and a panel of "checkers of the facts". The "checkers" could talk to the alternative monitor, who could then politely challenge the debaters.
They could alternate as moderator. While one is moderating, the other could carefully listen to check the facts. Alternatively, the listening moderator could have a small earphone and a panel of "checkers of the facts". The "checkers" could talk to the alternative monitor, who could then politely challenge the debaters.
10
@Majortrout
That kind of live fact-checking is precisely what the GOP objected to in the previous two presidential debates. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But the GOP seems to consider the moderators as simple announcers-of-the-questions and not as representatives of the viewing public who might protest at a particularly egregious untruth passing unchallenged.
In keeping with their hostility to government regulation of certain business practices, the GOP like to keep the public fending for themselves against powerful adversaries that might be selling them a bill of goods. No agency (or moderator) need be involved when it comes to money, facts, and votes. Only when it involves religious discrimination or women's vaginas. Then they're all in for 'gubmint' regulation.
That kind of live fact-checking is precisely what the GOP objected to in the previous two presidential debates. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. But the GOP seems to consider the moderators as simple announcers-of-the-questions and not as representatives of the viewing public who might protest at a particularly egregious untruth passing unchallenged.
In keeping with their hostility to government regulation of certain business practices, the GOP like to keep the public fending for themselves against powerful adversaries that might be selling them a bill of goods. No agency (or moderator) need be involved when it comes to money, facts, and votes. Only when it involves religious discrimination or women's vaginas. Then they're all in for 'gubmint' regulation.
2
What if the debaters were put into a cone-of-silence where they could only hear the questions of the moderator and nothing else. They couldn't even hear each other (I'm tired of the childish banter disguised as political responses). This should put a dent in the showboating. Give them a specific amount of time to respond, stay on track, and if they wander...I am sorry but you just lost your chance to respond. Questions should be well grounded, specific questions, relating to true issues involving the American society at large and its involvement in the world. For example...Do you believe in Global Warming? Should all Americans be allowed to vote, one person, one vote?Should the civics be taught in schools that teaches the truth about this country...do you believe that Columbus found America...who was enslaved more in this country, Africans or Irish? Should CEOs be allowed to be paid 300 time more than its company's workers? Should companies operating in this country be allowed to off shore their headquarters and money to avoid pay proper taxes? Should America have universal health care? Should America's healthcare system be under a single payer model? Should America be involved in NATO. Should America stop isolating Russia? What is needed to improve our nation's education system? Do you believe in Global Warming?
21
Gwen Ifill of the Newshour will always be my standard for Best Moderator.
Careful on-target questions, encouraging clarity from each candidate, and a remarkable professionalism that has rarely been matched. And by the way,
Did Candy Crowley provide an important service to Democracy when she "fact checked" the innuendos of citizen Romney- still one of our best examples of how to provide the truth to the American voters.
Careful on-target questions, encouraging clarity from each candidate, and a remarkable professionalism that has rarely been matched. And by the way,
Did Candy Crowley provide an important service to Democracy when she "fact checked" the innuendos of citizen Romney- still one of our best examples of how to provide the truth to the American voters.
27
Too bad that Rachel Maddow will not be a moderator. She is among the few living journalists.
32
My guess is that they debaters will offer nothing but repeats of campaign speechs, no matter how irrelevant they are to the questions asked.
7
That's where a good moderator will intervene to challenge any fluff instead of substance, and keep the debate to a debate.
10
No minorities. No very day people.
2
Bring back the league of women's voters that I grew up with, watching uncompelled questioners handling difficult qquestions. But please please give this generation the grace to understand.
10
I think I'm going to have to boycott this squalid affair. Don't want to raise its ratings. Let Jill Stein, Ajamu Baraka, Gary Johnson, and Mike Weld debate.
4
How about getting someone from the independent media, TYT maybe to moderate? They are both going to get tossed underhand softballs for all of these debates with no follow up.
5
Hoping they will be able to maintain order. The moderator needs to have the power to shut off someone's mic.
24
We all know that no one will push Clinton to tell the truth and stop her lies. She will hem and haw and make a stupid comment and try to move on, especially about the 30,000 e-mails for yoga and dress colors! It will be liberalism at its best until Wallace.
3
The article should have named the newscasters who will be posing the questions. Also, I hope the moderators will keep the debaters on track to debate, and not be allowed to go off on tangents with monologues that abase the opponent.
2
We all know that no one will push Trump to tell the truth amd stop his lies. He will hem and haw and make stupid comment(s) and not try to move on, especially about his immigration "policy," his economic "policy," or his foreign affairs, and racist remarks. And, no, traveling to Mexico, for 3 hours, is not foreign policy experience.
6
Looks like will be Trump agains 5 people. This will be interesting.
How soft are these people going to be on Clinton ... that all depends on how much fund comes out of the foundation.
How soft are these people going to be on Clinton ... that all depends on how much fund comes out of the foundation.
2
You've got to wonder why they don't use the PBS New Hour anchors Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill who have consistently provided the steadiest, most insightful, and fairest coverage of the election to date. Heck even their political commentators David Brooks and Mark Shields would be more neutral choices than Chris Wallace who works for the GOP's broadcast propaganda arm Fox News. Hopefully the chosen moderators will show some backbone and not let any candidate bully them -- I can think of one with very tiny hands who most certainly will bully everybody else. And wouldn't it be grand if they were to object each time any candidate lies during the debate?
18
Take a look at PBS's corporate donor list and re-evaluate their coverage. Perhaps they have their own version of fair and balanced, but it is not necessarily balanced in the direction of political/social reform.
1
Great comments. I agree with nearly all of them. As with authors, I'd like to see the candidates reference their sources when making bold/controversial claims or statements. I'd also like to see them not interrupt one another.
8
I am sure these are experienced and top-level journalists, and will do their best to be good moderators. Last President elections were the first ones I voted while in this country, and watched all debates. I was impressed by all moderators, especially from the one who lead the last debate. Don't remember the name of the journalist, but remember he was an old one, probably very experienced, showed the same attitude to both candidates, and the debate went exceptionally well. I hope the upcoming moderators will be as good as he was.
2
Each will have a personal social thesis and a corporate media agenda going in, goes without saying: It would be nice if each stated same before the event begins so we all might determine if they have achieved and/or proved both during the event.
3
How can they call these "debates"? One candidate hasn't the slightest idea how to debate or present ideas on policy. I wish HRC had just said No, thanks.
2
The moderators picked are from the northeast. Why not balance the ticket, so to speak, by getting someone from out west. I know! Timothy Egan! Smart, articulate, even-handed, I've seen him on PBS so the camera will like him. Why not?
Let's be fair.
Let's be fair.
8
I think the choices made for the moderators were excellent, although I would have liked to seen CBS represented by Nora ODonnell or Charlie. They both are seasoned vets and would not hesitate asking the tough questions that are relevant and important to all American citizens.
2
Chris Wallace has a conflict of interest. He is friends with Roger Ailes of FOX and has defended him against sexual harassment charges. Roger Ailes is prepping Trump. This is a terrible choice and this commission should be called out for their REALLY bad choice.
34
Why is the highly partisan FOX news network being chosen? Equal time folks: what about MSNBC? How about Chris Matthews, the only moderator with the guts to force Trump to finally answer a question he kept avoiding?
Trust me he'd do the same for Clinton. The man is a pit bull, assuming he isn't running out of time.
Trust me he'd do the same for Clinton. The man is a pit bull, assuming he isn't running out of time.
20
Chris Wallace, an ardent defender of Roger Ailes, who is advising Trump. Well, I'm sure he will be fair and balanced.
13
Not a serious journalist in the group... A bunch of lightweights.
9
Why, oh why did they pick Martha Raddatz? Another female anchor like Gwen Ifill or Judy Woodruff -- television journalists who have common sense -- would have been far preferable!
13
Both of the major party candidates ran over the time limits in primary debates. I hope they turn off their mike when their time has expired AND when it's not their turn to talk!
7
Unless this is a set-up, it doesn't make any sense to have vocal supporters of Hilly as debate moderators (pos exception of Chris Wallace). Wouldn't we all be better off with more moderate moderators (no pun intended)? Of course, if you're a prog, these three will do just fine.
4
Nah, progressives were sold down the river by these folks during the primaries. Establishment Democrats, figureheads for the corporate owners of their organizations, sure, but progressives they are not.
The format is still weak:
A moderator is necessary, as is a panel with 3 specialized journalists, say one in foreign affairs, a reporter who covers the house and senate issues, and a reporter on global and domestic economics.
A moderator is necessary, as is a panel with 3 specialized journalists, say one in foreign affairs, a reporter who covers the house and senate issues, and a reporter on global and domestic economics.
9
Anyone who has bothered to take the time to watch Chris Wallace knows that he is not a tool of Fox News. He is a superb journalist and is not biased.
As several other people have mentioned it is a glaring omission not to have included the excellent Gwen Ifill of PBS. She has always been one of the very best moderators.
I understand that CNN is a major news network but it would nice for a change to turn on my television and not see Anderson Cooper what seems like 24 hours a day. He's overkill on their network and the public could use a break and see some new faces. For all those questioning Chris Wallace's integrity, it is Anderson Cooper that is responsible for the nation not learning about the other 16 Republicans who ran in the primaries and caucuses. CNN has been all Trump all night every night.
Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz are great and just as deserving as Chris Wallace but Martha Raddatz has already done several other debates.
It's bad enough in a country of 325 million people that our two choices for President are vying for the record of which one is the most disliked and untrusted but are there only five or six journalists in our entire nation that could qualify to moderate a debate?
Other than Lester Holt, it's the same old same old. All four are great, Gwen Ifill is great, but how about some new faces? Oh, and another thing, one woman was chosen out of four? No Hispanics and no Blacks? Did Donald Trump recommend the list of suggested moderators?
As several other people have mentioned it is a glaring omission not to have included the excellent Gwen Ifill of PBS. She has always been one of the very best moderators.
I understand that CNN is a major news network but it would nice for a change to turn on my television and not see Anderson Cooper what seems like 24 hours a day. He's overkill on their network and the public could use a break and see some new faces. For all those questioning Chris Wallace's integrity, it is Anderson Cooper that is responsible for the nation not learning about the other 16 Republicans who ran in the primaries and caucuses. CNN has been all Trump all night every night.
Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz are great and just as deserving as Chris Wallace but Martha Raddatz has already done several other debates.
It's bad enough in a country of 325 million people that our two choices for President are vying for the record of which one is the most disliked and untrusted but are there only five or six journalists in our entire nation that could qualify to moderate a debate?
Other than Lester Holt, it's the same old same old. All four are great, Gwen Ifill is great, but how about some new faces? Oh, and another thing, one woman was chosen out of four? No Hispanics and no Blacks? Did Donald Trump recommend the list of suggested moderators?
3
In today's media, this is probably the best possible lineup, although if there had been just two more debates, PBS and MSNBC might have been represented as well. Keep in mind though that MSNBC is part of NBC, so PBS is the only network that really isn't represented this year, and they're not a news-centric network.
1
That he moderators should have been Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Larry Wilmore.
21
Ironic that self-professed comedians bring more Truth to the populace than msm journalists these days.
Why have a live studio audience at all?
10
Readers ought to list the questions they want asked. Not about how many emails and did Trump move a millimeter on immigration. Questions that have already been asked on controversial issues should be barred and only questions intended to cover new and important ground should be allowed.
An independent commission should list the questions.
Don't understand why anyone who works for Murdoch should be allowed on the stage considering the great harm that his hosts have caused with their scandal formulations and drumbeats. And all of the screwed-up heads that have resulted when FOX puts down our government and how it works when normal poor souls try to do a good job.
What Trump has said about Obama and Hillary simply poison our world. That's Newt Gingrich, Rover Ailes, Stephen Bannon and Karl Rove at work.
These men and the GOP business model have done incalculable harm to our society.
An independent commission should list the questions.
Don't understand why anyone who works for Murdoch should be allowed on the stage considering the great harm that his hosts have caused with their scandal formulations and drumbeats. And all of the screwed-up heads that have resulted when FOX puts down our government and how it works when normal poor souls try to do a good job.
What Trump has said about Obama and Hillary simply poison our world. That's Newt Gingrich, Rover Ailes, Stephen Bannon and Karl Rove at work.
These men and the GOP business model have done incalculable harm to our society.
10
The problem with most all moderators is they laugh and ham it up the the candidates. All that does is chew up the clock and waste time.
Direct questions should receive a direct answer. The questions should not be "gotcha" questions, but certainly probing questions that require a detailed response.
Direct questions should receive a direct answer. The questions should not be "gotcha" questions, but certainly probing questions that require a detailed response.
1
The very fact that the article correctly speaks of these assignments as burnishing the careers of those chosen demonstrates that far too much of the "show" is about them, not the candidates or the ostensible purpose of enlightening the public.
The four people referenced here are more talking heads than journalists, not that a journalist is necessarily good at herding cats or that talking heads can't. However, none of them has demonstrated that he or she is capable of controlling adversarial situations, let alone ones done live. What is needed if one truly wants to elicit information about candidates, rather than have entertainment for Nielsen ratings, are people who are not public media celebrities but those who have been trained to handle such situations and demonstrated the ability to do so.
Unless there is a moderator who is willing and able to keep things focused and under control, these debates will be much like the Republican primary debates, watched for their entertainment value, not for enlightenment. Even so, Presidential debates at this point are very much like the choice of a candidate for Vice President: they are far more capable of losing you votes than gaining you votes.
The four people referenced here are more talking heads than journalists, not that a journalist is necessarily good at herding cats or that talking heads can't. However, none of them has demonstrated that he or she is capable of controlling adversarial situations, let alone ones done live. What is needed if one truly wants to elicit information about candidates, rather than have entertainment for Nielsen ratings, are people who are not public media celebrities but those who have been trained to handle such situations and demonstrated the ability to do so.
Unless there is a moderator who is willing and able to keep things focused and under control, these debates will be much like the Republican primary debates, watched for their entertainment value, not for enlightenment. Even so, Presidential debates at this point are very much like the choice of a candidate for Vice President: they are far more capable of losing you votes than gaining you votes.
3
Please make trump answer questions and give factual answers - the voters need facts, clear & concise statement and presidential behavior = trump has shown this is impossible for him to pull off.
7
Am I the only one who thinks there is something strange about Fox News hosting the 3rd debate with only Chris Wallace as moderator, while leaving out Megyn Kelly? She who bleeds from her "whatever" in the midst of a debate? She who told on being sexually harassed by Roger Ailes, who is now a Trump advisor?
As Trump would say, "Something's going on here."
Well, no matter, the odds that Trump will show up for a third debate are pretty small anyway. He will claim that it's rigged.
As Trump would say, "Something's going on here."
Well, no matter, the odds that Trump will show up for a third debate are pretty small anyway. He will claim that it's rigged.
1
Where is an NPR commentator - Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruf, Hari Sreenivasan - in this line-up? And why are there not two moderators for each debate? Martha Raddatz is clearly capable of moderating on her own, or is Anderson Cooper a foil in case Trump goes off message and castigates women? (Or is this on message a la Trump...?) Just wondering. And yes, I agree about suggested audience demeanor. And turning off microphones for candidate not speaking is an idea.
2
you mean PBS
1
Read Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" and you might finally realize how vapid these debates are.
5
theres only one moderator capable of bringing to this august event th dignity which it deserves
-- jerry springer
2
Notable that no print or web journalists were even considered.--max frankel
5
It seems cruel to require people in their late 60s and early 70s to go 90 minutes without a bathroom break.
2
While the possibility exists that some may change their minds the debates will allow both candidates to flesh out positions of interest to most of us who though probably set on our choice by now always welcome substance to be underlined.
In addition I trust all the so called dirty laundry is washed and hung out during their first encounter.
Only thing worse than a windbag is two of them.
In addition I trust all the so called dirty laundry is washed and hung out during their first encounter.
Only thing worse than a windbag is two of them.
2
I just hope and pray Donald Trump does not ask to see Lester Holt's birth certificate. Given that Lester's maternal side grandparents were Jamaican (mixed Indian and British) and dad's side, mixed Scottish and West African.
3
Despite a huge push with a petition signed by hundreds of thousands, Jon Stewart is not one of these moderators. Too bad.
2
In this age, where fact-checkers are live-fact-checking debates, it is odd that that isn't built into the debate format. Every half-hour, the fact-checking should be reported as part of the debate format.
6
Don't you think since you identified the Filipino-American moderator by name, that you should identify the openly gay man by name?
Is the all-white panel in deference to Donald Trump? I would have included Joy Reid of MSNBC, who doesn't let politicians get away with any nonsense.
2
WHAT CHANNEL? Amazing that this important information was left out.
3
Careful analysis of the polling data suggests the debate will come too late to salvage Clinton's campaign. Unfortunately, the press has been a free advertising agent for Trump, and will, at least in part, be responsible for the fall of this country in the claws of a pathological narcissist, with potentially horrific consequences. Trump will win, and the press will wonder how did it happen.
2
Chris Wallace likes to ride the Big government is great high horse following what the media reports. I would have liked Jeb Bush, Bernie Sanders, Herman Cain, and Chris Matthews.
1
Great roster of Presidential Debate Moderators! Only Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer are missing but they'll be watching with us! Congrats to the Commission on Presidential Debates for their terrific choices. The best selection of talking heads, media heroes and heroines - a woman in her young sixties, an African-American in his mid-fifties, a Jewish correspondent of 68,and a white and fine gay man, 49. All well-seasoned talking heads. All brilliant. And a lovely Hispanic woman, 51, to moderate the VEEP Debate.
We couldn't ask for a more 5 star bunch of moderators (except for Wolf Blitzer as an extra "juror" if one of the Fab Five moderators may miss his or her debate). May the candidates give each other and the moderators a run for their money!
We couldn't ask for a more 5 star bunch of moderators (except for Wolf Blitzer as an extra "juror" if one of the Fab Five moderators may miss his or her debate). May the candidates give each other and the moderators a run for their money!
These are great choices, but this is NOT going to make Trump supporters happy. I am sure they want Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity in the moderator seat. But it will give Donald Trump a chance to complain bitterly about the "unfair" treatment he will receive when he crashes and burns.
1
In 1988, an open letter from League of Women Voters President Nancy M. Neuman to the George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis campaigns, stated, in part, “It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
Since then, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit organization jointly owned by the Republican and Democratic parties, has, with a great deal of success, limited public discourse on topics that the billionaire class truly care about.
The news media do not need to submit to the CPD’s objectives, but the news media share those objectives, especially broadcast media (see “Ross Rambles: CPD swindles voters”).
Since then, the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit organization jointly owned by the Republican and Democratic parties, has, with a great deal of success, limited public discourse on topics that the billionaire class truly care about.
The news media do not need to submit to the CPD’s objectives, but the news media share those objectives, especially broadcast media (see “Ross Rambles: CPD swindles voters”).
5
Thanks. It's nice to read that not everybody is hoodwinked into believing that these debates are more than a mere formality in shaping a predefined public opinion.
At least this group seems fair enough, but goes without saying with corporate media these days, we'll have to see what sort traps and tricks they've undoubtedly got planned for the first match. Still someone with biting wit like Camille Paglia throwing barbs at Hillary would be most entertaining, and enlightening. But the New York City media probably hate her more than Trump.
5
Chris Wallace, when he moderated the Republican debate said, 'let them have at it'- he was willing to forgo all rules of the debate and let it descend down the tubes. The Republican debates were a farce- no substance, nasty rude comments, appalling behavior and DT's famous grimaces, smirks and snide comments.
The cheering (at the Rosie O'Donnell comment) was disgusting. The questions had no substance. Those who tried to give substance were drowned out and insulted.
I hope the moderators are better informed, have better questions and are able to shut down immediately all snide, nasty rude comments. ALSO NO AUDIENCE. Without an audience to play off is, Trump can't allude the answers.
Please don't let these debates turn into a debacle-
The cheering (at the Rosie O'Donnell comment) was disgusting. The questions had no substance. Those who tried to give substance were drowned out and insulted.
I hope the moderators are better informed, have better questions and are able to shut down immediately all snide, nasty rude comments. ALSO NO AUDIENCE. Without an audience to play off is, Trump can't allude the answers.
Please don't let these debates turn into a debacle-
7
These presidential elections are so discouraging
Barely a whisper of third party candidates in the mainstream news, no way to get attention in our fame / media culture... and it's so effective!
Commission on Presidential Debates arbitrarily deciding who gets the spotlight - barring candidates who've made the ballot in most states?!
"Debate" formats that tend to ridiculous with weak moderators, questions and answers with litte time and substance despite complex issues at stake
The public gets an inarticulate incoherent candidate at the top Republican position and a corporatized, militiarized, bribed candaidate coronated to the Democratic position.
Seems more of dog and pony show, again. Ideas to fix this ? Please!
Barely a whisper of third party candidates in the mainstream news, no way to get attention in our fame / media culture... and it's so effective!
Commission on Presidential Debates arbitrarily deciding who gets the spotlight - barring candidates who've made the ballot in most states?!
"Debate" formats that tend to ridiculous with weak moderators, questions and answers with litte time and substance despite complex issues at stake
The public gets an inarticulate incoherent candidate at the top Republican position and a corporatized, militiarized, bribed candaidate coronated to the Democratic position.
Seems more of dog and pony show, again. Ideas to fix this ? Please!
2
As long as the candidates are allowed endless opportunity to repeat their campaign talking points, the debates will be be mere exercises in self promotion. Let's have a real debate, where the candidates are held responsible for their positions, forced to answer probing questions, and called to task if they avoid a direct answer.
1
Please include Stein and Johnson in debates. Let's discuss real issues instead of who said what.
4
It is wrong for the last debate to be anchored by FoxNews. They are intentionally biased in favor of the Republicans, and their political reporting is not Real News at all as much as it is a propaganda machine for the far right. Their "News" is liberally peppered with idiological, brain washing buzz words intentionally chosen to manipulate the message against anything fair to the Democrats.
They, in their political reporting, are nothing but a bunch of sleazy, Morally and Ethically challenged Rabble-Rousers.
They, in their political reporting, are nothing but a bunch of sleazy, Morally and Ethically challenged Rabble-Rousers.
3
It is wrong for the last debate to be anchored by FoxNews. The are intentionally biased in favor of the Republicans, and their political reporting is not Real News at all as much as it is a propaganda machine for the far right. Their "News" is liberally peppered with idiological, brain washing buzz words intentionally intended to manipulate the message against anything democratic.
They, in their political reporting, are nothing but a bunch of sleazy, Morally and Ethically challenged Rabble-Rousers!
They, in their political reporting, are nothing but a bunch of sleazy, Morally and Ethically challenged Rabble-Rousers!
3
I think the decision to put fox news last was deliberate -- if Fox had gone first, Trump might have bailed on subsequent debates.
2
Les is not merely more, he's the best.
After candidates respond to a moderator's question, the moderator should either state that the question was answered or that the question was not answered. If the moderator wishes to give the candidates a second chance, the second chance should be quick.
3
"In 2012, after Candy Crowley of CNN fact-checked Mr. Romney and corrected him during a debate with Mr. Obama, she was criticized by Republicans for behavior that they claimed overstepped the bounds of a moderator."
This is misleading. She didn't fact check - she fact checked incorrectly and what she said was proven wrong. Whether it was by design or was done mistakenly, it was pivotal moment that tilted the race inexorably towards President Obama.
This is misleading. She didn't fact check - she fact checked incorrectly and what she said was proven wrong. Whether it was by design or was done mistakenly, it was pivotal moment that tilted the race inexorably towards President Obama.
1
Here's a novel idea: why not hold the debate without a "live" audience? Just the candidates in a studio standing across from the moderator. Without the spectators to play to, it would result in less sound byte answers and hopefully (!) more reflective and reasoned responses. Of course, it would not matter the format if moderators were unable/ unwilling to ask hard follow-up questions and demand the candidates actually answer in detail what was asked of them. I know, dream on........
26
Martha Raddatz was awesome during the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate. I look forward to her moderating a Presidential one this year.
6
While two of the Presidential Debates will air against NFL games,
watch for Hillary “The Law Firm” Clinton and Donald “Slot Machine” Trump to give new meaning to the words contact sport.
watch for Hillary “The Law Firm” Clinton and Donald “Slot Machine” Trump to give new meaning to the words contact sport.
1
The headline should read: Presidential Debate organizers suppress third parties. The private company run by Republican and Democrat operatives which goes by the misnomer 'Commission on Presidential Debates' is keeping out serious third party candidates for President.
It is the TV networks who are accepting this 'Commission' and its rules. They could refuse to play along with this undemocratic two party debate, but they are two weak to take a stand. Most Americans don't get independent news which informs them of options outside the two big parties. If the Libertarian and Green party candidates have enough support to be listed on ballots across America, then the public should be able to see them debate with Clinton and Trump.
It is the TV networks who are accepting this 'Commission' and its rules. They could refuse to play along with this undemocratic two party debate, but they are two weak to take a stand. Most Americans don't get independent news which informs them of options outside the two big parties. If the Libertarian and Green party candidates have enough support to be listed on ballots across America, then the public should be able to see them debate with Clinton and Trump.
15
Suggestion to Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace, run away and hide. The audience wants to be the moderator, not you.
2
So far, the primary debates did not even come close to be a true debate. Let's follow Canada's lead and have no audience at the debates. If we do have audiences, it will not be a debate.
41
...just like the Kennedy-Nixon debate...therefore no grandstanding for the audience
7
Chris Wallace ???!!!??? When did Faux News become an official news outlet?
20
Same time as the NYT, the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Come on now. You know it's true.
1
That because he's "Daddy's Boy!"
1
These farcical TV-celebrity-hosted reality TV show "debates" just play into the hands of former reality TV show hosts like Trump. And they are worthless in terms of determining if the "contestants" know anything, because the "hosts" of the shows aren't experts at anything...including not knowing enough about any subject to ask relevant follow-up questions.
11
Unless there is a moderator who is willing and able to keep things focused and under control, these debates will be much like the Republican primary debates, watched for their entertainment value, not for enlightenment. Even so, Presidential debates at this point are very much like Vice Presidential picks: they are far more capable of losing you votes than gaining you votes.
The four people referenced here are more talking heads than journalists, not that a journalist is necessarily good at herding cats or that talking heads can't. However, none of them has demonstrated that he or she is capable of controlling adversarial situations, let alone ones done live. What is needed if one truly wants to elicit information about candidates, rather than have entertainment for Nielsen ratings, are people who are not public media celebrities but those who have been trained to handle such situations and demonstrated the ability to do so.
The very fact that the article correctly speaks of these assignments as burnishing the careers of the chosen ones demonstrates that far too much of the "show" is about them, not the candidates or the ostensible purpose of enlightening the public.
The four people referenced here are more talking heads than journalists, not that a journalist is necessarily good at herding cats or that talking heads can't. However, none of them has demonstrated that he or she is capable of controlling adversarial situations, let alone ones done live. What is needed if one truly wants to elicit information about candidates, rather than have entertainment for Nielsen ratings, are people who are not public media celebrities but those who have been trained to handle such situations and demonstrated the ability to do so.
The very fact that the article correctly speaks of these assignments as burnishing the careers of the chosen ones demonstrates that far too much of the "show" is about them, not the candidates or the ostensible purpose of enlightening the public.
9
No one from PBS? Well we wouldn't want any articulate or difficult questions from the moderators!
46
Today's PBS is no longer "public" the way it used to be. It was intentionally starved of public funding and driven into the arms of corporate sponsors - sorry, "underwriters". It shows in the timidity of its coverage. Back in the day, a PBS debate moderator might have contributed something unique, but today, I doubt it.
2
PBS is not what it once was
1
"...George W. Bush defied the caricature of himself as a lightweight by holding his own against Al Gore."
That year, thanks to the efforts of MoDo, Ceci, Kit, Tweety and others, the fix was on for Bush. And having Lehrer moderate ensured that follow-ups of Bush's bogus economic claims were not heard.
That year, thanks to the efforts of MoDo, Ceci, Kit, Tweety and others, the fix was on for Bush. And having Lehrer moderate ensured that follow-ups of Bush's bogus economic claims were not heard.
5
Oh, dear. (This is going to be cynical comment.) How can we possibly make it through a presidential campaign without Jim Lehrer asking the softest of softball questions? Will the Republic stand?
I grew so tired (and I think the nation did, too) of questions that allow the candidates to slip through with almost no effort. Lehrer was our most practiced moderator at posing questions with a wide open door toward an easy getaway. The goal seemed to be to finish up as everyone being friends and meeting for dinner. PBS has a built-in and perhaps fatal compromise in the fact that it gets government funding. Lehrer obviously knew which side his PBS bread was buttered on and how the butter got there.
I majored in history in college instead of journalism, but I have never heard of a course in J-school where they break down the politics of journalism, how "mainstream" reporters and organizations bend and sway with presumed public opinion and kowtow to the powerful and those rising to power. Nor have I seen any studies on the issue of whether someone who works for PBS can, in fact, remain of an independent mind and provide strong content. Sure, there are good people there and surely the PBS News Hour, which Lehrer helped to establish, is not without some value, but it is fair to ask whether compromised journalism is worth the effort. The fact that Lehrer was so favored for so long as THE moderator of debates was no accident. He, and his former show, were establishment pets.
I grew so tired (and I think the nation did, too) of questions that allow the candidates to slip through with almost no effort. Lehrer was our most practiced moderator at posing questions with a wide open door toward an easy getaway. The goal seemed to be to finish up as everyone being friends and meeting for dinner. PBS has a built-in and perhaps fatal compromise in the fact that it gets government funding. Lehrer obviously knew which side his PBS bread was buttered on and how the butter got there.
I majored in history in college instead of journalism, but I have never heard of a course in J-school where they break down the politics of journalism, how "mainstream" reporters and organizations bend and sway with presumed public opinion and kowtow to the powerful and those rising to power. Nor have I seen any studies on the issue of whether someone who works for PBS can, in fact, remain of an independent mind and provide strong content. Sure, there are good people there and surely the PBS News Hour, which Lehrer helped to establish, is not without some value, but it is fair to ask whether compromised journalism is worth the effort. The fact that Lehrer was so favored for so long as THE moderator of debates was no accident. He, and his former show, were establishment pets.
4
It's a decent line-up of moderators, except Lester Holt is pretty much of a robotic newsreader. He will have to be well-rehearsed and scripted because this is not a guy who thinks on his feet, or bottom as the case would be.
3
I don't agree. Mr Holt reads the news without inserting his personality and views into it which is how it should be. He is a major improvement on Williams, a shallow and narcissistic personality.
The news is not entertainment despite the tabloid style antics at NBC and CNN.
Lester Holt is an intelligent individual who will bring a level of impartiality to ghe debate.
The news is not entertainment despite the tabloid style antics at NBC and CNN.
Lester Holt is an intelligent individual who will bring a level of impartiality to ghe debate.
7
I couldn't agree more. Having Holt moderate the first debate is a disaster. He cannot stand up to Trump at all as was shown in the "exclusive interviews" that precede this impt debate. Holt is a passive newsreader who got to where he is now by being extremely polite and risk averse. I think that Anderson Cooper is also flummoxed with Trump. The absence of a PBS newscaster is insane. Well the Media got us to this precarious spot and I guess their ready to throw us into the pit. let me guess the questions: "how do you describe the art of the deal?" "How would you handle your emails if elected president?" " how astonishingly excellent is YOUR health?" " how important was it to accept the Mexican president's invitation?" " on a scale of 1-10, how hot is your daughter?" " can you describe how you would use the bankruptcy code to your advantage and avoid releasing your taxes ?"
Looks like everything is reduced to ratings. We have become a country without soul and our media, mainstream and far right, couldn't be happier.
Looks like everything is reduced to ratings. We have become a country without soul and our media, mainstream and far right, couldn't be happier.
3
Yes, Holt "reads the news" via teleprompter. Much of his work before the Nightly News was as the guy who says: "And that's it for tonight, thanks for watching" at the end of Dateline or something. He is not a sharp reporter nor a good interviewer. But you may be right, that fact (not projecting a bias like Cooper or Wallace) might make for a better debate, who knows.
Joy Reid should have been chosen.
6
Way too biased. As would be anyone from MSNBC.
2
If "way too biased" means cutting through the outright lying and grandstanding republican cabal, so be it. Reid seems to be the only journalist who values our time and intelligence, which is refreshing when one considers the muzzled and bound quality of our media around Donald Trump's candidacy.
9
The main reason I watch the Presidential debate is to gauge the reactions from the audience to understand the common threads among us, what are the latest issues that divide us, and how much differences between us. I hope nobody tries to mute the audience voices and I hope the audience is a close representation of American voter population.
The audiences are not random cross-sections of Americans.
3
This election is starting to remind me of a broken down car. What is so funny is Americans forget congress runs the show. Both house and Senate remind me of the engine and transmission and both are blown and all we do is keep on changing the driver of the car that can't run.
11
Because this is a circus, we just admit it and make it a circus. All moderators should be standing in 10 foot stilts, wearing a silk Uncle Sam suits with top hats. Trump and Clinton should wear boxing robes. Giant Rocky-like oil paintings should be displayed behind them. Each as entrance music when they walk out on stage: Trump plays Survivor's "Eye of the Tiger" and Clinton plays Katy Perry's "Rowr". Each debater gets one pie to throw and a horn to honk. As the crowd cheers at zingers and one-liners, the "winning" debater is elevated a foot or so by Peter Pan wires, all based on who gets the most decibels. By the end, the candidate highest in the air wins the debate.
This is basically what goes on now, it's just dressed up to look civilized.
This is basically what goes on now, it's just dressed up to look civilized.
13
Elections and debates are all about the macro Media. Both are staged to pull in money and power and votes for the competing media and their stars.
Elections have nothing at all to do with the country.
The real news is that the macro Media and their owners have taken over - and rule - the process, the country, and the daily lives of their citizens.
Elections have nothing at all to do with the country.
The real news is that the macro Media and their owners have taken over - and rule - the process, the country, and the daily lives of their citizens.
2
Lester Holt is as good as it gets for the current generation of news anchors.
8
The League of Women Voters, who used to run the Presidential debates until 1988 when the highly partisan corporate-run Commission on Presidential Debates took over, called the current debate format "a fraud on the American voter."
League President Nancy M. Neuman said:
"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
It's time to end this farce, open the debates to third party candidates, and have real journalists and community leaders ask questions, not the milquetoast corporate media stooges.
https://www.change.org/p/commission-on-presidential-debates-include-all-...
League President Nancy M. Neuman said:
"It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and honest answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."
It's time to end this farce, open the debates to third party candidates, and have real journalists and community leaders ask questions, not the milquetoast corporate media stooges.
https://www.change.org/p/commission-on-presidential-debates-include-all-...
24
Please stop calling these events "debates." They are not debates.
19
How diverse! One African-American, one woman, one openly gay, one thoughtless right-winger.
4
If you think Chris Wallace is a"thoughtless right-winger," clearly you have never watched him.
6
Holt is not African American. He is of Jamaican descent.
3
It would be great if the moderators would try to remember the debates are not about them.
Interrupting the candidates because they don't want to accept the often biased premises of leading questions, isn't helpful to letting the candidates explain themselves.
On the other hand, letting the candidates off the hook without pressing them in a non-confrontational manner, is just giving weaker candidates a pass to pretend they are qualified.
But grand standing moderators who are loud, rude, and cut off answers in an effort to "direct the debate" (ahem, Chris Wallace) are as bad or worse than evasive candidates on the overall process of communicating a candidates' actual positions.
These "debates" are already a failing vehicle for voter information, but at this point its just about all we have left.
Interrupting the candidates because they don't want to accept the often biased premises of leading questions, isn't helpful to letting the candidates explain themselves.
On the other hand, letting the candidates off the hook without pressing them in a non-confrontational manner, is just giving weaker candidates a pass to pretend they are qualified.
But grand standing moderators who are loud, rude, and cut off answers in an effort to "direct the debate" (ahem, Chris Wallace) are as bad or worse than evasive candidates on the overall process of communicating a candidates' actual positions.
These "debates" are already a failing vehicle for voter information, but at this point its just about all we have left.
Oh good.
One thing though. The kid gloves need to come off.
I'm not saying that civility needs to be thrown to the wind, but these moderators need to take a stand. They need to stop treating these debates like they are high school debate team practice. They need to ask direct, relevant, difficult questions and demand REAL answers. They also need to make it clear to the candidates that if they speak out of turn, or interrupt, they will have their microphone shut off.
GHWBush didn't have the spine to remind St. Ronnie that each candidate was paying for the microphone in front of them (actually, their donors to their respective campaigns were) when St. Ronnie berated him: "Mr. Bush, I am paying for this microphone." It's high time that the candidates behaved themselves and more so, that each has time to defend themselves, to respond in kind BEFORE being asked another question.
One thing though. The kid gloves need to come off.
I'm not saying that civility needs to be thrown to the wind, but these moderators need to take a stand. They need to stop treating these debates like they are high school debate team practice. They need to ask direct, relevant, difficult questions and demand REAL answers. They also need to make it clear to the candidates that if they speak out of turn, or interrupt, they will have their microphone shut off.
GHWBush didn't have the spine to remind St. Ronnie that each candidate was paying for the microphone in front of them (actually, their donors to their respective campaigns were) when St. Ronnie berated him: "Mr. Bush, I am paying for this microphone." It's high time that the candidates behaved themselves and more so, that each has time to defend themselves, to respond in kind BEFORE being asked another question.
8
These *debates* are not legitimate unless all four candidates on enough ballots to be elected are included. The Green party's Jill Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson deserve to be heard.
The secretive nature of the extremely partisan Commission on Presidential Debates further illustrates how exclusive control of the electoral process rests in the hands of a few leading Republicans and Democrats. And the main stream media bows to their wishes. If there were any journalistic credibility left, the moderators would refuse to participate unless all four legitimate candidates are included.
The secretive nature of the extremely partisan Commission on Presidential Debates further illustrates how exclusive control of the electoral process rests in the hands of a few leading Republicans and Democrats. And the main stream media bows to their wishes. If there were any journalistic credibility left, the moderators would refuse to participate unless all four legitimate candidates are included.
8
And when Trump repeatedly dodges vital policy questions, kitchen table questions, and starts shouting, "Crooked Hillary did something or other," which of these worthies steps up to reign him back into debating the topic at hand?
Just curious as to which...
Just curious as to which...
16
Oh, probably the same one who is willing to say, "Thank you Mrs. Clinton for that extended dialogue that sounded like you were reading the footnotes to a mortgage, but could you please answer the question this time?"
Lester Holt the first moderator? I anticipate Trump & Co. trying to wiggle out of the first debate under the excuse that it is rigged.
6
Martha Radiate was my wartime hero long before one could even Google her name.
But I’ve begun to switch channels when she subs for Stephanopoulos. One can only
speculate what Mrs.Clinton has ever done to invite the snide little twists Ms. Raddatz
inserts that have less to do with grown up news reportage than some distracting
undercurrent of “get-even-isms” delivered as only a woman scorned can do it.
Such tackiness plucks Radiate right out of the admirable reporter/journalist category and plunks her down into the into the more appropriate genera of the Fox “news” biddies paid to tout the prejudice their institution pays them big bucks for.
And I hate to see what’s happened.
But I’ve begun to switch channels when she subs for Stephanopoulos. One can only
speculate what Mrs.Clinton has ever done to invite the snide little twists Ms. Raddatz
inserts that have less to do with grown up news reportage than some distracting
undercurrent of “get-even-isms” delivered as only a woman scorned can do it.
Such tackiness plucks Radiate right out of the admirable reporter/journalist category and plunks her down into the into the more appropriate genera of the Fox “news” biddies paid to tout the prejudice their institution pays them big bucks for.
And I hate to see what’s happened.
5
In other words, you're OK with the prejudice that Stephanopoulos exhibits in favor of Hillary, but you are opposed to any other prejudice.
5
Of course, when Candy Crowley "fact checked" Romney in '12, she was completely wrong, Romney was right, and she disgraced her profession.
7
He was also right about the rise of Russia. Unfortunately for world history, Obama was blind to that.
By participating the debate, Mr. Trump has spoken loud and clear that the election is not rigged as he claimed in public.
Here’s and idea. For our candidates, build a podium with two buttons. They are asked a simple, direct, and *unbiased* question that will require their answer to start with a simple “Yes” or “No”. Said buttons on podium are labeled as such.
The microphone is only activated when the candidate presses one of two buttons , THEN they are free to substantiate their answer in any way they want.
Their "Yes" or "No" should also light up in front of the podium for the audience to see exactly what constitutes "Yes" or "No".
Still some may consider this too rigid, despite the need for unequivocal responses to fair, straight-forward questions. If so, provide them an "It Depends" button for "nuanced" answers, or a "Pass" button to (turn off mic and) concede their response.
The microphone is only activated when the candidate presses one of two buttons , THEN they are free to substantiate their answer in any way they want.
Their "Yes" or "No" should also light up in front of the podium for the audience to see exactly what constitutes "Yes" or "No".
Still some may consider this too rigid, despite the need for unequivocal responses to fair, straight-forward questions. If so, provide them an "It Depends" button for "nuanced" answers, or a "Pass" button to (turn off mic and) concede their response.
1
I wonder if there isn't something physically wrong with Mrs. Clinton. The article, despite all of its verbosity, does not mention that the first debate will not be a "debate" at all. the candidates will not face each other, nor will they be on the same stage at the same time. The format is back-to-back with prescreened questions. The timeframe is also unusually short. The optics look bad for Mrs. Clinton. Does she not have the intestinal fortitude or the physical wherewithal to face Trump ? It may be the case that she is preparing for a bombshell to be dropped before the debate and wants to have prescreened questions to protect herself.
1
Clinton is fine ... Trump, on the other hand, is clearly mentally unbalanced and is a sociopath as evidenced in his business dealings. He is a chameleon who tries to please whatever audience is in front of him.
8
I like Lester Holt, but question how good a job he will do as a moderator given NBC's past relationship with Trump. I watched Holt interview Trump after he got the nomination and was not impressed.
Personally, I would like to see moderators who are not basically celebrity journalists get the job. All of the moderators are members of the 1%; how about choosing ordinary Americans who have the appropriate skills to moderate a debate.
Personally, I would like to see moderators who are not basically celebrity journalists get the job. All of the moderators are members of the 1%; how about choosing ordinary Americans who have the appropriate skills to moderate a debate.
7
Unless the questions and the moderation are tight, this will be a horrorshow. Frankly, I don't plan to watch any of these; I will read the transcripts and the coverage.
Trump does not debate. In any rational debating contest he would get a zero almost all the time. His replies always are of the form:
* Gratuitous insults ...
* followed by narcissistic self aggrandizement
* and then either some completely meaningless claim ("You'll love it." "It will be yuuuge." "What have you got to lose?"), or an abrupt shift to a rant on some other topic.
And this is all compounded by the fact that whatever Trump said today he contradicted the day before, and that was a contradiction of the day before that...
Trump does not debate. In any rational debating contest he would get a zero almost all the time. His replies always are of the form:
* Gratuitous insults ...
* followed by narcissistic self aggrandizement
* and then either some completely meaningless claim ("You'll love it." "It will be yuuuge." "What have you got to lose?"), or an abrupt shift to a rant on some other topic.
And this is all compounded by the fact that whatever Trump said today he contradicted the day before, and that was a contradiction of the day before that...
11
Oy, that's some line-up. Can Donny T take the heat? Can HRC stand the Qs, especially from Cooper? After 10 months of no press conferences, reciting memorized talking points and putdowns might not be enough to keep an audience enthralled. Donny T might prevail, still not impossible. For a cheeky peek behind closed doors at a gleefully unrehearsed Halloween there under Donny T, playwright Dick Weber's no-holds-barred romp AW, DONNY! is spot-on unforgettable political satire (like Brecht meets the Marx Bros - check it out on Medium). Ridicule is a radiating weapon. HRC superPac Priorities USA should post that playscript for free downloads, as its devastating effect is long lasting, unlike pricey TV ads that can evaporate in a few days. Donny T fooled millions in the primaries, the voters' fault. Fooling millions more now, he's developing a political business model. We may yet be stuck with him.
2
In addition to prohibiting audience reactions and cutting off microphones when the participants' allotted time has expired, the sponsors of the debate should penalize candidates for any personal attacks on their opponent by not permitting them to answer the next question. Consider it the equivalent of serving two minutes in the penalty box for elbowing or slashing.
5
Having several on-site fact checkers would vastly improve the presidential debates--perhaps a few political science college professors could be on hand. In 2012, Candy Crowley was right to correct Mitt Romney's false statement concerning President Obama's reaction to the Benghazi attack; candidates should not be able to get away with false claims, outright lies, and misrepresentations about their or their opponet's positions.
8
She wasn't right. The reports the very next day showed that her 'fact-checking' of Romney was wrong.
3
Except that Crowley's "correction" was proven wrong after the debate, to her disgrace.
3
The Commission on Presidential Debates is made up of Democrats and Republicans, with their biases and corruption. We need to go back to the days when the League of Woman Voters hosted the debates. It is unlikely that any of the real hard questions will be asked (except to try to trip up Trump) of the candidates. As I have decided that neither is worth listening to, I'll not waste my time.
10
I would like to share a brilliant idea my wife came up with regarding the election choices we have. What I will call the #noneoftheabove write-in.
Since many people have expressed disdain for voting for either of these candidates, it may be an option for a legitimate standard write-in choice to get the attention of the party leaders.
Think about it- for those in this position, you can sit home. All this does is lower the vote count and the pundits will claim public disinterest. Voting for the third or fourth party might get them 12 - 15%. Writing in Bernie or Romney will get you nowhere.
If you vote for the person you detest the least, it LOOKS like a normal election, except in reverse. "In a landslide, the electorate has spoken and the hate Donald Trump more by a wide margin!"
But - what if "none of the above" was used by 40% of the voters? Based on all the comments I have read, it is not out of the question if this movement could "go viral" as they say. It is obvious this election, for many voters is a choice between two very disliked candidates.
I have not thought out all the details, but it would seem Obama stays in office until a fairly quick nomination of reasonable candidates would occur.
But even if all this did was elect the next President with 27% of the popular vote, we could send a unified message that this is not the way people want the country to be run.
Since many people have expressed disdain for voting for either of these candidates, it may be an option for a legitimate standard write-in choice to get the attention of the party leaders.
Think about it- for those in this position, you can sit home. All this does is lower the vote count and the pundits will claim public disinterest. Voting for the third or fourth party might get them 12 - 15%. Writing in Bernie or Romney will get you nowhere.
If you vote for the person you detest the least, it LOOKS like a normal election, except in reverse. "In a landslide, the electorate has spoken and the hate Donald Trump more by a wide margin!"
But - what if "none of the above" was used by 40% of the voters? Based on all the comments I have read, it is not out of the question if this movement could "go viral" as they say. It is obvious this election, for many voters is a choice between two very disliked candidates.
I have not thought out all the details, but it would seem Obama stays in office until a fairly quick nomination of reasonable candidates would occur.
But even if all this did was elect the next President with 27% of the popular vote, we could send a unified message that this is not the way people want the country to be run.
That idea came from a movie starring Richard Pryor called, "Brewster's Millions."
1
I'm sure Hilary is thinking "It's going to be difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
18
Trump brings lots of ammo to accuse Hillary of what's been reported in the media about her. As Trump often says, "People are saying" The other thing he brings are 5th grade level ideas on how to Fix America.
Hillary brings 30 plus years of experience to this debate. You can accuse her of what you like, but she knows politics instead and out. She also brings every racist, misogynistic offense, crazy comment Trump has said in public for the last year. On top of all that Trump's poor business record and the fat Trump hasn't yet shown his Tax Returns.
Hillary brings 30 plus years of experience to this debate. You can accuse her of what you like, but she knows politics instead and out. She also brings every racist, misogynistic offense, crazy comment Trump has said in public for the last year. On top of all that Trump's poor business record and the fat Trump hasn't yet shown his Tax Returns.
17
If the moderators or news media refuses to fact check the debates, what's the point of having them?
11
Hope you don't think of these people as "journalist". All four are NEWS READERS. None have any credibility as JOURNALISTS especially Holt who has been proven a fabricator of stories for self-aggrandizement.
These four well represent the worthless of the news media.
All we can expect are silly soft ball question with none of the real issues addressed.
I for one will not waste my time.
These four well represent the worthless of the news media.
All we can expect are silly soft ball question with none of the real issues addressed.
I for one will not waste my time.
1
You're wrong - Martha Raddatz is a real journalist. She goes to places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey and does real reporting. She is not just a talking head.
7
Holt a "proven fabricator"?
Do tell, and use those sources the rest of us peons are apparently too stupid to know about.
Do tell, and use those sources the rest of us peons are apparently too stupid to know about.
1
Amy Goodman
Ian Masters
Robert Frisk
Seymour Hersh
Glenn Greenwald
Christopher Hitchens
Ambrose Evans-Pritchar
Ian Masters
Robert Frisk
Seymour Hersh
Glenn Greenwald
Christopher Hitchens
Ambrose Evans-Pritchar
Without allowing the Libertarian and the Green candidates on the stage, I for one don't really care to watch.
5
The candidates should sit for extensive, on the record interviews with major print, web and public radio outlets.
I'm not going to tune into these "debates" where one party screams "he's unfit!" and the other screams "she's crooked!"
Trump is deranged. Plain and simple.
Clinton...and I predicted this months ago...has learned from her past campaigns and is not giving press conferences. She is limiting her exposure because she knows that she doesn't perform well in unscripted situations.
Obama, interestingly, always got into the most trouble when he tried to script his responses, doing better when he responded in the moment.
If she gets in, we can hope she nominates sensible people for the SCOTUS. Apart from that, she will be a disaster.
I'm not going to tune into these "debates" where one party screams "he's unfit!" and the other screams "she's crooked!"
Trump is deranged. Plain and simple.
Clinton...and I predicted this months ago...has learned from her past campaigns and is not giving press conferences. She is limiting her exposure because she knows that she doesn't perform well in unscripted situations.
Obama, interestingly, always got into the most trouble when he tried to script his responses, doing better when he responded in the moment.
If she gets in, we can hope she nominates sensible people for the SCOTUS. Apart from that, she will be a disaster.
I truly hope the "What do you admire about your opponent?" question is dropped. It's such a waste of time.
6
Moderators should ask a question... Not frame an opinion verbosely in the asking of the question !
Good suggestions made today.
I would like to add that the moderator be allowed to press a buzzer if a candidate has not answered the question put to him or her in the allotted time, in the moderator's opinion.
I would like to add that the moderator be allowed to press a buzzer if a candidate has not answered the question put to him or her in the allotted time, in the moderator's opinion.
5
May we offer up Stephen Cobert and John Stewart to moderate the second debate?
61
As I suspected:
"In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity labeled the CPD a "secretive tax-exempt organization." CPI analyzed the 2004 financials of the CPD, and found that 93 percent of the contributions to the non-profit CPD came from just six donors, the names of all of which were blacked out on the donor list provided to the CPI."
That explains why PBS will forever be a "no show" in these fake "debates".
"In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity labeled the CPD a "secretive tax-exempt organization." CPI analyzed the 2004 financials of the CPD, and found that 93 percent of the contributions to the non-profit CPD came from just six donors, the names of all of which were blacked out on the donor list provided to the CPI."
That explains why PBS will forever be a "no show" in these fake "debates".
15
I think I'll mute the sound and put on some music.....The Who's 'Won't Get Fooled Again" on repeat till the debate is over.
4
Format changes to make these debates better serve the public:
Apart from the town hall, have no on-site audience. Saves the time lost to applause and re-balances the events toward public discourse and away from entertainment.
Focus the debates on the 10-12 topics topping the polls of issues concerning the public, for example, from Pew Research: economy, terrorism, immigration, health care, gun policy,... Allot 20 +/- minutes to each in the following format:
Opening statements on that topic, question(s), answer, rebuttal, counter, closing statements on that topic, and conclude with third-party fact check with nominee microphones off. Reduce segment closing statements by amount of excessive time limit overruns.
For each debate schedule each nominee to have 5-minute final, closing statement with time of each reduced by time needed to correct their major (maybe define as 2 or more Pinocchios) factual errors. End with third-party fact check of final closing statements.
Apart from the town hall, have no on-site audience. Saves the time lost to applause and re-balances the events toward public discourse and away from entertainment.
Focus the debates on the 10-12 topics topping the polls of issues concerning the public, for example, from Pew Research: economy, terrorism, immigration, health care, gun policy,... Allot 20 +/- minutes to each in the following format:
Opening statements on that topic, question(s), answer, rebuttal, counter, closing statements on that topic, and conclude with third-party fact check with nominee microphones off. Reduce segment closing statements by amount of excessive time limit overruns.
For each debate schedule each nominee to have 5-minute final, closing statement with time of each reduced by time needed to correct their major (maybe define as 2 or more Pinocchios) factual errors. End with third-party fact check of final closing statements.
7
They just might. Hillary is past the only person who would have benefited from those rules (Bernie Sanders) and now they'll try everything possible to provoke a headline title from Trump.
I propose that there be some strict rules:
1. Insults or name calling will result in a three-minute penalty where the offender's microphone is cut off.
2. Fact checking will be done in real time with a text-crawl at the bottom of the screen.
3. The moderators MUST state when a question goes unanswered and the candidate cannot have more time to get back on-track.
1. Insults or name calling will result in a three-minute penalty where the offender's microphone is cut off.
2. Fact checking will be done in real time with a text-crawl at the bottom of the screen.
3. The moderators MUST state when a question goes unanswered and the candidate cannot have more time to get back on-track.
17
Watch his conversation with Jon Stewart to see how he explains his job as presenting a Republican point of view...
3
and The Show marches-on...
**********************************
(( to the everlasting consternation of freedom-loving peoples,
both here and abroad - - -
as being far-far too long, drawn-out, distracting,
and a fundamental waste of valuable time and resources...
- - - for another forum on another day ))
***********************************
please consider relabelling this sophomoric-sham for what it truly is:
A Reality-Entertainment Dis-Information Production - - -
made-to-order for DJT ...
may HRC avoid a nixonesque performance in the heat
of the Bully Master...
in the end,
our electorate will likely once-again be embarrassed for foisting this pair
on the world...
responding to earlier commenters:
perhaps it is better,
in the long-run,
that PBS was conspicuously absent from these selections...
after all,
they will-get "the-last-meaningful-words" up-to-and-including
November 8th,
without the stain associated with this circus-act.
one can still hope...
well,
maybe...
1
Very disappointed. I haven't seen any one of these individuals control a conversation. I hope that the rules are strong, as others have mentioned, to shut off the microphones when time is expired or when it isn't their time to speak - stop the interruptions!
8
Almost 75% of the electorate dislike or are frightened by the two candidates being presented by the political parties controlling our election. It is imperative that Gary Johnson be represented on the debate platform. It is the best chance for a debate of actual ideas and policy. His participation is a first step in reducing the polarizing gridlock of the major political parties and demonstrating the desire of many Americans for fiscal responsibility and social inclusiveness, but most of all ...... Respect for each other.
7
I was contemplating voting for Johnson/Weld until Johnson went on his current gun-nut tear of pandering to the NRA.
It is completely unacceptable to me for anyone who claims to support the constitution or will take an oath of office to that effect to claim the 2A supports the idea of "2nd amendment remedies."
Read the constitution, look at the history of its drafting after Shay's rebellion. That idea is nuts, and no court has ever supported it nor ever will.
It is completely unacceptable to me for anyone who claims to support the constitution or will take an oath of office to that effect to claim the 2A supports the idea of "2nd amendment remedies."
Read the constitution, look at the history of its drafting after Shay's rebellion. That idea is nuts, and no court has ever supported it nor ever will.
4
Johnson is not on a "gun nut tear" as you put it. Just against further restrictions than the ones we have now. Hardened Democrats shunning Johnson over this and vaccinations is akin to arguing over deck chair placement on the Titanic as it is sinking. We have almost $20 Trillion in govt debt, government has intruded into all aspects of our lives, and our electorate is divided into armed camps that hate each other. Those are trends that will only continue with Trump or Clinton.
Yikes! Three major Hilary promoters and a Not-too-hot on Trump-er. Not one challenging question to Hill?
3
This will not be a debate in the literal meaning of a "debate" as much as it will be a name-calling event and spouting accusations that have nothing to support any accusations. It will be one more carnival act.
The question is, can Mr. Trump answer question that require thought using intellect and proven fact rather than baffling with...Well, you know.
Mr. Trump was able to bully his rivals in the debates prior to the primaries with disinformation and name-calling.
Hopefully the moderators will limit his toxic nonsense and make these debates informative and adherence to the issues rather than a dark comedy.
The question is, can Mr. Trump answer question that require thought using intellect and proven fact rather than baffling with...Well, you know.
Mr. Trump was able to bully his rivals in the debates prior to the primaries with disinformation and name-calling.
Hopefully the moderators will limit his toxic nonsense and make these debates informative and adherence to the issues rather than a dark comedy.
11
I would have preferred John Dickerson over either Cooper or Wallace.
2
i would have preferred eric severied or ed murrow
both unavailable, alas
3
@Andormeda -
It's always so easy to pull people out of the past and use them to cudgel those who are doing the work today. You'll forgive me for making presumptions, but my guess is that if either of those reporters was alive today you would find them unsatisfactory and prefer some other long dead reporter.
By the way, if you really respect them you might try capitalizing the first letters in their names and spelling them correctly. It's Eric Sevareid not severied.
It's always so easy to pull people out of the past and use them to cudgel those who are doing the work today. You'll forgive me for making presumptions, but my guess is that if either of those reporters was alive today you would find them unsatisfactory and prefer some other long dead reporter.
By the way, if you really respect them you might try capitalizing the first letters in their names and spelling them correctly. It's Eric Sevareid not severied.
1
I only ask two things: One, all moderators have a large hook they can use whenever either candidate answers falsely. Once off the stage, the offender has 5 minutes to return and apologize for lying to his or her opponent, the moderator, the audience and the country. Two, all moderators impose a cone of silence over the audience. I know I am dreaming, but this is what I long to happen, even though it would make each debate about four hours long.
11
This debate will go down as one of the most anticipated events since Frazier v. Ali and for god reason.
The GOP debates were a complete joke. Hilarious to watch but zero in the way of substance. Eventually they descended into nothing more than school yard tantrums and name calling.
I don't see Trump getting away with the same antics that served him well in the past nor do I see him taking the time to actually learn the complexities of the various issues.
What I do see is Trump stumbling his way through with nonsensical responses that will clearly demonstrate how ill-equipped he is for the position. If he gets frustrated enough at being bested by a woman, expect to see the real Donald emerge with comments that will likely make his Megan Kelley tirade look like child's play.
The GOP debates were a complete joke. Hilarious to watch but zero in the way of substance. Eventually they descended into nothing more than school yard tantrums and name calling.
I don't see Trump getting away with the same antics that served him well in the past nor do I see him taking the time to actually learn the complexities of the various issues.
What I do see is Trump stumbling his way through with nonsensical responses that will clearly demonstrate how ill-equipped he is for the position. If he gets frustrated enough at being bested by a woman, expect to see the real Donald emerge with comments that will likely make his Megan Kelley tirade look like child's play.
7
I would hope that Mr. Johnson will be on stage with the other two candidates....and make it a true debate and not just lip service. The moderators should remind all 3 candidates it is a debate not a stump speech.
5
The burning question I have prior to the first debate is: will the candidates shake hands before the start? Trump has called Clinton a bigot, crooked and has said she should be locked up. Clinton has said that Trump is the most dangerous candidate to ever run for president, and called him an isolationist. A handshake can certainly show a bit of class and some form of mutual respect – which is something we have not seen during this election year.
I think Hillary Clinton can show that level of respect to Donald Trump as a human being, but I don’t think Trump can poise himself to do the same.
I think Hillary Clinton can show that level of respect to Donald Trump as a human being, but I don’t think Trump can poise himself to do the same.
6
Personally ... I couldn't shake Trump's hand. Why should Hillary?
4
With all the race issue going on in America, the organizers of the debate didn't see it fit to include a minority as a moderator. Humm let me guess, so there are no qualified educated minority they see fit to participate in the debate. #Lack of care.
3
Last time I checked, Lester Holt is an African-American.
#BeBetterInformed
#BeBetterInformed
3
Uh -- Lester Holt, anyone?
3
Lester Holt, African American.
2
Candy Crowley didn't overstep her bounds. She did her job. She fact-checked Romney in real time. That's what a moderator is supposed to do.
7
Unfortunately no one was there to fact check Crowley because she was factually wrong.
1
Please proceed, Governor.
1
Here's hoping they'll cover Voter Fraud and the attempts to "correct" it. Since we FINALLY have an actual case of it: Steve Bannon, who is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws
7
I wish these debates would be actual debates instead of short answers for sound bytes to be used in ads or in news shows. There really is no substance to these so called debates. Be interesting if they did the Oxford style of debating, for then we would get substance and real content, with each of the debates on a specific topic. Then we could see who has a mastery of the issues. Otherwise, it is just entertainment and for ratings.
2
Great lineup with the exception of Anderson Cooper. Lester Holt is a very credible choice to lead off, and Mr. Wallace is a great choice, as a closer. Mr. Cooper on the other hand shows no real cognizance of American politics, and CNN, by far, has done the most biased and worst reporting on the campaign thus far. I do not watch Fox News, nor ABC, but I have seen Mr. Wallace from time to time, and he has always impressed me as some one in search of the truth, which should be the intention of all the press, but it is not. CNN emphasizes controversy only and does not bother with facts, let alone the truth.
More importantly, more important than the press, is whether or not there will be a traditional debating format, which I hope is the case. I am not interested in a circus or name calling. I want to hear the thoughts and the thought process of the candidates. Thus far I have to say, that Mr. Trump has neither. He does not appear to have any convictions and seems more like a snake oil salesman than a politician, who, for the most part, are only marginally more reputable than the latter. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, is actually intelligent and can speak on the issues. So, if you remember, it will be kind of like Carl Sagan debating Reverend Falwell on evolution. As Mr. Sagan said during the debate, Mr. Falwell came to the debate totally disarmed. So it will be when we view the first debate, if Mr. Trump, in fact, attends.
More importantly, more important than the press, is whether or not there will be a traditional debating format, which I hope is the case. I am not interested in a circus or name calling. I want to hear the thoughts and the thought process of the candidates. Thus far I have to say, that Mr. Trump has neither. He does not appear to have any convictions and seems more like a snake oil salesman than a politician, who, for the most part, are only marginally more reputable than the latter. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, is actually intelligent and can speak on the issues. So, if you remember, it will be kind of like Carl Sagan debating Reverend Falwell on evolution. As Mr. Sagan said during the debate, Mr. Falwell came to the debate totally disarmed. So it will be when we view the first debate, if Mr. Trump, in fact, attends.
8
You do realize that none of these choices will be doing the same "debate" Holt and Wallace are hosting two different debates. Raddatz and Cooper are hosting a Town Hall setting
Why would anyone think otherwise? That's what was stated in the article. It's about having structure and not a free for all.
I haven't heard the other three interview but I've seen Anderson Cooper behave in interviews like a kowtowing pansy. A wuss. Sure, he looks pretty and doesn't want anyone to dislike him - but he better man-up and hold the candidates accountable for going off on tangents, bullying, name calling, anything else we're likely to see from inexperienced, ill tempered Drumpf.
5
Folks here seem to be under the impression that this is some kind of high school forensics debate where the rules are set and enforced by some all-powerful governing body. It's really not. And it's also not a trial at the Hague. One of these candidates is going to run this country come next year, and neither of them are going to submit to any rules they don't like. If you're looking for a debate moderator or some rule change to save us from Donald Trump with his short vulgar finger on the button you're out of luck. Ignore the post-debate scorecards and just vote.
3
I liked Amy Walter's work as a PBS commentator at the conventions. She would be a better moderator than Hollywood Cooper.
I am not familiar with Raddatz but Wallace and Holt are good choices. I watch Chris Wallace on Sundays and feel he is tough on anyone sitting across from him regardless of their party.
I am not familiar with Raddatz but Wallace and Holt are good choices. I watch Chris Wallace on Sundays and feel he is tough on anyone sitting across from him regardless of their party.
3
I hope they will use the on/off switch on the mikes and cameras to keep each candidate's time equivalent this time around.
3
I hope this won't just turn out to be another "softball" game.
2
The first Presidential debate is being held at Hofstra University in Long Island. Wouldn't it have been interesting if at least one of the debates was moderated by a student journalist? We could of used the debate format to highlight emerging national youth leaders
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
PAUL FEINER
Greenburgh, NY Town Supervisor
1
"Even Mitt Romney, who ultimately lost to Mr. Obama, shook up the 2012 race late in the season by routing the president in their first debate."
A bit of editorializing here, keep it objective NY Times
A bit of editorializing here, keep it objective NY Times
5
Trump apparently negotiated a FOX coda to the debates--showing that the pot is mostly calling the kettle black by rigging these debates !
1
Mr Trump is by now known to violate all the norms and rules of decency. More than likely when he cannot stay on the topic for lack of knowledge he will resort to his routine mean attacks on the opponent as well as the moderators.
It will be a test for the moderators to handle Teump and they need as much coaching as the candidates
It will be a test for the moderators to handle Teump and they need as much coaching as the candidates
1
Neither Gwen Ifill nor Judy Woodruff from PBS Newshour? Are we that afraid of substantive policy questions with drilled down unflappable follow-up? The omission of these journalists speaks volumes about these 'debates', how we are actually talking about our public policy and governance needs and requirements, the protection of constitutional freedoms and right, and this current election cycle. (May we never see the likes again. But who am I kidding?)
7
It is my fervent wish that the moderators will moderate. When the time is up to speak , after the warning has been given, TURN OFF THE MIC! Abide by the agreed rules for a change.
4
It is true that the Presidential debates do not resemble the first debates where decorum and truth prevailed. I blame the moderators who are either cowards in avoiding confronting lies or the moderators who play favorites by not asking the hard questions and the audience who cannot wait for candidates to finish speaking before breaking out in inappropriate applause or whistling.
It is similar to the recent republican debates that had no rules, zero decorum and outright nastiness. Unless this debate overcomes the previous debates, I will just go to sleep, crying.
It is similar to the recent republican debates that had no rules, zero decorum and outright nastiness. Unless this debate overcomes the previous debates, I will just go to sleep, crying.
2
Just great. The system interviews the system. "I want to ask you both -- why do YOU think the United States is the greatest country on earth?"
Any and all fireworks will be inadvertent. Like the time Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was worth it; like the time Ted Koppel asked Al Companis why there weren't any black gm's in baseball.
Koppel later admitted, "I thought he was someone we could safely bring on to talk in rather bland if warm clichés about one of the great men in baseball" -- Jackie Robinson. "No one thought it was going to be memorable," Koppel said.
God forbid!
Any and all fireworks will be inadvertent. Like the time Lesley Stahl asked Madeleine Albright if the deaths of half a million Iraqi children was worth it; like the time Ted Koppel asked Al Companis why there weren't any black gm's in baseball.
Koppel later admitted, "I thought he was someone we could safely bring on to talk in rather bland if warm clichés about one of the great men in baseball" -- Jackie Robinson. "No one thought it was going to be memorable," Koppel said.
God forbid!
1
I can't think of a single reason to watch a debate between these two. He'll bloviate all over the helpless moderator, and she'll try to make us forget she was lining her pockets with "charitable contributions" as Secretary of State.
Let's hope that the moderators ask questions about policy, and keep the questions brief. No one wants to hear the moderators drone on and on. Get to the point. Uncover the facts and move on.
3
No offense to the hairdos, but why can't one or more moderators be a print journalist? You know, a real reporter.
5
Let's make "moderation" mean something.
The biggest problem with these so called "debates", is that instead of actually answering the questions, the candidates are allowed to "morph" into memorized "stump speeches", which rarely provided an answer to the question.
Any time a candidate pulls this stunt, their microphone should be cut off immediately. And they should not be allowed to start to answer the question again.
If they can't handle this rule, how would they possibly be able to handle the Presidency?
The biggest problem with these so called "debates", is that instead of actually answering the questions, the candidates are allowed to "morph" into memorized "stump speeches", which rarely provided an answer to the question.
Any time a candidate pulls this stunt, their microphone should be cut off immediately. And they should not be allowed to start to answer the question again.
If they can't handle this rule, how would they possibly be able to handle the Presidency?
2
Why does a Fox talking head get to moderate a debate, while MSNBC is not represented?
4
Because MSNBC doesn't have anyone in the same league as Chris Wallace. He is tough, experienced, and though he personally leans slightly left, he is fair.
1
Rachel Maddow would be an excellent moderator. Can you envision her making mincemeat of Donald Trump without even uttering a word?
3
Lester Holt works for NBC which owns MSNBC
2
Donald Trump is the nominee of a major party, but having a debate with him is like debating a WWE professional wrestler. He has not shown any deep nuanced thought about any of his positions. Trump speaks in platitude and uses stereotypes to make his points. The debate will probably be Trump hurling insults at Hillary Clinton and the moderator. He will try to bully Mrs. Clinton like he did his primary opponents who were all basically empty suits. Hopefully, Mrs. Clinton will put a pin in this blowhard. The Republican Party has dissolved into the lowest common denominator party and they are embarrassing themselves and the country with Donald Trump as their standard bearer. Donald Trump and the present Republican Party is an insult to any thinking person's intelligence.
4
Put each candidate and the moderator(s) at a round table.
Put the "audience" behind soundproof glass and show their facial expressions only (with only an occasional, split screen showing the speaking candidate).
Immediately following the event, have middle and high school students tell the viewing audience what they think the candidates said or meant.
Return to regular broadcasts and only on the following morning should "media" be allowed to comment or spin.
Put the "audience" behind soundproof glass and show their facial expressions only (with only an occasional, split screen showing the speaking candidate).
Immediately following the event, have middle and high school students tell the viewing audience what they think the candidates said or meant.
Return to regular broadcasts and only on the following morning should "media" be allowed to comment or spin.
2
At the moment I don't plan on watching any of these "debates" - the reason is that they are not debates. Candidates are allowed to evade the questions, spout untruths, and return to 'talking points" regardless of what the question was. Moderators should certainly be allowed to call out these people when they spout clearly untrue statements - this goes for both of them. I have no confidence the moderators will be able to control the candidates. In addition, unless the audience is not allowed to "root", they tend to devolve into a contest of one-liners in order to try and get the best audience reaction. In fact, these events really should be held with just the two candidates and the moderator with no audience at all. This would increase the pressure on the candidate to actually answer the questions and provide policy positions. The American public needs information on the positions these people hold on important public policy issues. The point of these events should be to try and expose not only the position, but the plan to implement the policy - often something that is given no attention.
4
What about PBS? The one network without profits as an incentive, and, if you ask me, much better journalists!
22
Carson Drew and Jack T are concerned about Chris Wallace and his relationship with FOX news. I, too, am concerned about moderators from the networks and how weighted it is from the left. Everyone knows that NBC, ABC and CNN are all in HRC's corner. Add to that the NY Times and you will have two ball games on at once, soft ball for HRC and hard ball for DT.
Here are two questions that will not be asked and if they are will be evaded by both candidates...
1. Specifically, how will your administration deal with the mounting national debt and the increasing entitlements that is adding to it on a yearly basis?
2. The quality of life and social problems including drugs and crime within the black community in our inner cities has worsened over the past several years, again, specifically how will your administration deal with these issues.
Lets see what happens.
Here are two questions that will not be asked and if they are will be evaded by both candidates...
1. Specifically, how will your administration deal with the mounting national debt and the increasing entitlements that is adding to it on a yearly basis?
2. The quality of life and social problems including drugs and crime within the black community in our inner cities has worsened over the past several years, again, specifically how will your administration deal with these issues.
Lets see what happens.
2
This will be good.
One person who lives in the real business world with real world problems and solutions , the other one who has been living in a protective bubble and no real outside contact with real people.... and protection from the Liberal media.
When is the press conference?
What are you hiding?
One person who lives in the real business world with real world problems and solutions , the other one who has been living in a protective bubble and no real outside contact with real people.... and protection from the Liberal media.
When is the press conference?
What are you hiding?
1
Having just listened to a portion of Wallace's discussion with Bill Clinton on Fox, I can only wonder why Wallace - or anyone from Fox for that matter - was selected to chair one of the debates. The last thing that we need at any point from here forward in this already dismal campaign is to have the premiere voice of outright lies and violence associated with the debates. The haters need no further encouragement.
2
I will watch the debates but I am sure I will spend a large amount of time cringing at the questions, the follow-up questions and the behavior of the audience as well as Trump.
I agree with several commentators who asked why PBS was not allowed a seat at the table. And why not have a couple of people moderating? That way if one can't keep order, maybe the other one can. Good cop, bad cop.
What I noticed in the primaries is the difference in how the audience members behaved. The Republicans had an audience that evidently got lost on the way to a prize fight, while the Democrats had an audience there to hear the candidates and their views. Sure hope these debates can follow the Democrats' behavior.
I agree with several commentators who asked why PBS was not allowed a seat at the table. And why not have a couple of people moderating? That way if one can't keep order, maybe the other one can. Good cop, bad cop.
What I noticed in the primaries is the difference in how the audience members behaved. The Republicans had an audience that evidently got lost on the way to a prize fight, while the Democrats had an audience there to hear the candidates and their views. Sure hope these debates can follow the Democrats' behavior.
9
Three men and only one woman?? Bad news for female journalist and suggests that the Trump bias was influential.
3
Not Anderson Cooper, please. Send him off to Live with Kelli and Regis where he belongs.
Professional debate moderators, not journalists - who let's face it need to hedge their bets for future access to the pres -- are needed if these events are to be anything other than circus freak shows.
Professional debate moderators, not journalists - who let's face it need to hedge their bets for future access to the pres -- are needed if these events are to be anything other than circus freak shows.
5
Diversity is not just skin color and gender. How about a bit more of an even split on diversity of broadcaster political leanings? And please don't say that the broadcasters are not biased. See Candy Crowley when she interrupted Romney and shamefully interfered with the debate, not to mention that she was completely wrong.
12
You are wrong, and even "the Daily Beast" reports you as wrong. Read here:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-injects-h...
"When Romney was mounting an attack on the president for the administration’s shifting explanations of the attack of American diplomats in Libya, he hit a nerve.
“For fourteen days he refused to call it an act of terror,” Romney said.
Obama objected, telling Romney to check the transcript. At that point, Crowley attempted a rare feat during a presidential debate: fact-checking in real time. “He did in fact, sir,” Crowley told Romney referring to the president’s initial description of the assault on the U.S. Consulate."
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/17/candy-crowley-injects-h...
"When Romney was mounting an attack on the president for the administration’s shifting explanations of the attack of American diplomats in Libya, he hit a nerve.
“For fourteen days he refused to call it an act of terror,” Romney said.
Obama objected, telling Romney to check the transcript. At that point, Crowley attempted a rare feat during a presidential debate: fact-checking in real time. “He did in fact, sir,” Crowley told Romney referring to the president’s initial description of the assault on the U.S. Consulate."
3
It would be nice to have a moderator who will ask whether Endless War is helping or hurting, and whether it creates more terrorists than it kills.
Except that there is video of Pres. Obama in the Rose Garden, on the very day of the Benghazi attacks, stating that these "acts of terror will not shake our resolve." Romney falsely claimed that the President had failed to use that word to describe the attacks. So Crowley was actually completely right.
2
Ah, the fun days are approaching and the moderators are chosen for the grill. Let the kerfuffle begin with a bang. One can not wait to hear Trump unload a bunch of fiddlesticks, after the very first question. Hillary's hilariously circumlocutory responses to Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, email, Private jets, and Wall Street queries will be a treat to watch.
Two flawed candidates will be duking it out, and Trump's inclination to castigation will be an instigation for unforced errors. Once rattled, Trump will be more than happy to veer off course, taking the listeners for a dizzy and king-sized ride along with him.
Hillary's answers will invite more probing questions from the moderators, and she will start bristling in her own way. Sparks of ill-tempers will fly probably at breakneck speed across the room. Fists can be seen pounding in the air.
Both may have the potential to teeter on the cusp of flying off the handle. Facts may be compromised or completely buried, and the factcheck.org site will see a flurry of activities. Finally, very few might try to care.
Two flawed candidates will be duking it out, and Trump's inclination to castigation will be an instigation for unforced errors. Once rattled, Trump will be more than happy to veer off course, taking the listeners for a dizzy and king-sized ride along with him.
Hillary's answers will invite more probing questions from the moderators, and she will start bristling in her own way. Sparks of ill-tempers will fly probably at breakneck speed across the room. Fists can be seen pounding in the air.
Both may have the potential to teeter on the cusp of flying off the handle. Facts may be compromised or completely buried, and the factcheck.org site will see a flurry of activities. Finally, very few might try to care.
1
The debates themselves are a joke without Johnson/Weld. The debate commission is run by the Ds and Rs, and most of the "polls" don't include third party candidates on the top line, so a rigged game. Add to that the major news outlets (I'm not going to mention names here) don't cover them much because of the "polls" that don't ask about them. So the American people are the losers. So we may not hear from two 2-term, highly regarded governors, rife with integrity, ideas, and experience. Instead we will get the two most disliked candidates in history having a Jerry Springer food fight onstage .
8
Now that the moderators have been selected we must wait as Mr. Trump decides how horribly unfair those choices are to him. Perhaps he will try to negotiate more favorable conditions wherein the moderators will provide the questions to his handlers in advance so that they may craft normal, level headed responses that he can then recite off a teleprompter.
Short of that I'm sure Trump will complain loudly that he is being treated unfairly. And, of course should he actually show up for any of these debates he will complain even more loudly after being made to look the ill-prepared and uninformed fool that he is.
Short of that I'm sure Trump will complain loudly that he is being treated unfairly. And, of course should he actually show up for any of these debates he will complain even more loudly after being made to look the ill-prepared and uninformed fool that he is.
3
Oh my.
I assume that some newspaper will publish the transcripts?
I would rather read than watch.
I assume that some newspaper will publish the transcripts?
I would rather read than watch.
1
Hold the candidates to their time limit, but make the time limit reasonable for a fairly comprehensive reply. Format: Question, first candidate's answer, second candidate's answer, third, fourth; Rebuttal, same order; Next question, shuffle order...
Allow fact-checkers to work in real time, including fielding requests from a candidate regarding an opponent's statement (like a play review challenge in baseball or football, limited to two or three such challenge requests per candidate).
TURN OFF THEIR MICROPHONES WHEN IT'S NOT THEIR TURN TO SPEAK!
Yes, quiet the audience, or don't have an in-studio audience at all.
Very Importantly:
Open the debate to ALL qualified candidates, and "qualification" depends on how many states they are running in, perhaps ranked by how many electoral votes they can contend for. ABSOLUTELY NOT how they stack in the polls. (Poll-determined stage position was absolutely the worst possible format aspect in the pre-convention debates.)
Allow fact-checkers to work in real time, including fielding requests from a candidate regarding an opponent's statement (like a play review challenge in baseball or football, limited to two or three such challenge requests per candidate).
TURN OFF THEIR MICROPHONES WHEN IT'S NOT THEIR TURN TO SPEAK!
Yes, quiet the audience, or don't have an in-studio audience at all.
Very Importantly:
Open the debate to ALL qualified candidates, and "qualification" depends on how many states they are running in, perhaps ranked by how many electoral votes they can contend for. ABSOLUTELY NOT how they stack in the polls. (Poll-determined stage position was absolutely the worst possible format aspect in the pre-convention debates.)
2
Turning off the microphones when it is not their turn is a good idea. Hillary repeatedly interrupted and talked over Bernie in the Dem primary debates. The moderators were generally to scared to call her on it.
Two suggestions to make these debates more effective. First, have two moderators for each debate so that the one asking a question can "listen to understand" and potentially ask a follow-up rather than thinking about her/his next question. Second, eliminate the live audience; it serves no purpose to hear partisan applause which might alter a viewer's perception. Let the candidates speak directly to the 50 million people watching on television.
8
I hope the moderators check their egos at the doors and let the candidates debate EACH OTHER like a real debate. I wish they would go with ivy league debate moderators instead of journalists. There are plenty of opportunities and times for journalists to interview these candidates and a debate isn't an interview where they have to debate the moderator, which has unfortunately been increasingly the case as these moderators try to make themselves the stars of the show. Let the candidates debate each other and move out of the way.
8
CNN and faux but NOT PBS?!? Are you kidding?!? We've fallen further than I'd thought possible. This is NOT serious. Let's see an identification of the members of the "Commission on Presidential Debates". Don't tell me: it's a "non-profit" corporation.
7
Well, a bevy of softball pitchers if I've ever seen one. First, the moderators must set very rigid rules regarding speaking times, no interruptions, answering the questions asked, and no soundbites. Any violation will result in the offenders microphone shut off. In addition, every answer to be immediately fact checked and any lie exposed. Otherwise it is an unrepresentative waste of time and a continuation of propaganda and lies.
1
Political parties in parliamentary systems often publish their own newspapers, but here in the US, only the Republican Party has a house organ like "Pravda", "Izvestia" or "Granma". Fox News is as blatantly biased as political house organs get.
3
Trump is not going to be happy. Or is he? The bully will now have 3 excuses for why he didn't do well. It was "rigged" I tell you!
1
no PBS. and we know what Fox is.
How about just the two candidates and the modertor? no audience, no distractions, just serious business.
How about just the two candidates and the modertor? no audience, no distractions, just serious business.
14
Trump must have gotten his way, and been allowed to negotiate for who would moderate. Chris Wallace? Trumps mouthpiece.
3
I don't think this will be fair,the moderators have recieved or given money to the Clinton foundation or their spouses/family work for the DNC... and some of the moderators have their own foundations and money was given to them thru that..I use to like Lester Holt but he no longer is bias and leans towards Hillary as well as Anderson Cooper,who takes every word Trump says and turns it around,simply don't respect these choices..NBC owns most of the papers,media outlets and all have put their money on Hillary.
This country has allot of problems and most of these moderators don't even say ISIS they say is IS or ISIL, how can American's trust them when they can't even name the enemy and show their bias?
This country has allot of problems and most of these moderators don't even say ISIS they say is IS or ISIL, how can American's trust them when they can't even name the enemy and show their bias?
2
What does one expect from a TV program "sponsored by" the pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs for us to talk to our doctor about, adult diapers and 36-hour Cialis for daily use?
3
Add a diverse panel of fact checkers who can provide the moderator with specific corrections following a candidate response. There HAS to be some sort of check and balance to keep the discouse accurate and factual.
The question is this: will any of the moderators be able to keep Trump on point, and not allow the name calling to which he reverts when challenged.
6
Someone needs to tell me what Robert Siegel of NPR wouldn't make the idea host; he is smart, engaging and rarely backs down in an interview. I find it amusing that the network news anchors, who primp and preen and clearly engage in editorializing all the time, are still chosen for these roles. What's the matter, aren't there any journalists left at any newspapers? The entire thing is a fraud.
4
I haven't been so excited about a television event since Evel Knievel attempted to jump over the Snake River Canyon and fully expect the same disasterous results for Mr. Trump.
6
The real question is where are Trump’s tax returns for the last twenty years? This matter MUST be front and center in this debate. Americans need to know whether or not this jerk is a crook!
29
Of course he is! And if he wants to say he's not, fine, then, he should release his tax returns and copies of all the depositions he's had to give in all the lawsuits against him for cheating his contractors.
Real debates have rules. I know these "debates" will have nothing of the sort, as we've seen in the reality show spectacles during the primaries. Most disgusting was the absolute lack of control exhibited by the "moderators", who didn't seem able to grasp the concept of their function. Expecting Drumpf to shut up when it's not his turn to speak is beyond absurd. He has no self control over his mouth.
Additionally, why does faux news get the last "debate"? It would seem to favor Drumpf, as wallace will undoubted,y go "full bengazi" on Clinton, and toss slow, frosting-covered fatballs to Drumpf.
Additionally, why does faux news get the last "debate"? It would seem to favor Drumpf, as wallace will undoubted,y go "full bengazi" on Clinton, and toss slow, frosting-covered fatballs to Drumpf.
5
The essential factor in debates that illuminate the democratic process is that moderators are extremely knowledgeable about the issues they open up.
There is much slick parsing, oversimplification and lying left unchallenged.
The truth is not a sound byte !
If moderators cannot frame issues with intelligence, cannot call out nonsense or fuzzy logic, then the voters are poorly served. Mushy debates can simply give a podium for propaganda and smears.
There is much slick parsing, oversimplification and lying left unchallenged.
The truth is not a sound byte !
If moderators cannot frame issues with intelligence, cannot call out nonsense or fuzzy logic, then the voters are poorly served. Mushy debates can simply give a podium for propaganda and smears.
3
I admire Anderson and Lester and Chris so looking forward to them. Not too familiar with the others but they have good creds. Be STRONG folks!
Please no applause from audience during debate....spare us. ONLY at the beginning and the end.
I sure hope these moderators keep Trump 'on topic' and 'make' him answer the questions and not go into his usual insulting tirades and 'me,me'me' and then just give up trying to reign him in and move on. The primary debates were not handled strongly in my opinion and I admired the moderators.....but..... I have never seen any moderators who actually get tough with candidates the way they should. They give up just like they do with trying to get them to shut up when their time is up. Trump thinks its all about him since he is a textbook narcissist and never shuts up. They know the personalities so should take that into account. I want to hear specifics on issues/plans and NOT ATTACKS, LIES and RHETORIC. If Trump is allowed to be 'Trump' it will not go well. Americans want/need a real debate and not the usual circus he creates. He needs to be schooled on 'its NOT his boardroom' and he should be not be allowed to think this is his show........PERIOD.
Please no applause from audience during debate....spare us. ONLY at the beginning and the end.
I sure hope these moderators keep Trump 'on topic' and 'make' him answer the questions and not go into his usual insulting tirades and 'me,me'me' and then just give up trying to reign him in and move on. The primary debates were not handled strongly in my opinion and I admired the moderators.....but..... I have never seen any moderators who actually get tough with candidates the way they should. They give up just like they do with trying to get them to shut up when their time is up. Trump thinks its all about him since he is a textbook narcissist and never shuts up. They know the personalities so should take that into account. I want to hear specifics on issues/plans and NOT ATTACKS, LIES and RHETORIC. If Trump is allowed to be 'Trump' it will not go well. Americans want/need a real debate and not the usual circus he creates. He needs to be schooled on 'its NOT his boardroom' and he should be not be allowed to think this is his show........PERIOD.
4
So we get to see two people hated by the majority of Americans talk about how bad the other person will be... Should be great! (Sarcasm)
2
3 far left extremes and one middle of the road. Hats off to Clinton for getting these approved. Another Trump failure.
2
"Middle of the road"? Surely, you jest.
Wallace, like his dad, goes after anyone. That's middle of the road.
It's about time to have a fact checker as a formal part of the debate process. We can do that in real time today. Fibs would result in follow-ups from moderators who must be strong enough not to bend to the overwhelming personalities of the candidates.
Without fact checking, so-called debates devolve into who can get away with the most lies, half-truths, and misstatements.
Without fact checking, so-called debates devolve into who can get away with the most lies, half-truths, and misstatements.
3
Martha Raddatz moderated the vice presidential debate in 2012 and was one of the toughest and most effective debate moderators in recent election cycles. She won widespread praise for it. It is absolutely incredible to me that the article fails to note that experience and refers in passing to all of the moderators being "first-time presidential debate moderators". Technically, that's true, but the VP debate is clearly a crucial part of the cycle.
7
No Latino/a?
2
Hey, this is not fair! Where is Hannahan??? The debate is rigged now! Seriously, awesome selections for the moderators - knowledgeable and impartial!
My wish is for a real debate instead of a joint news conference. Throw out an issue and let them go back and forth for 15 minutes. Of course, this is just wishful thinking, but on can only hope.
3
Here it comes: voice to voice combat. I wonder if there are any real rules. Will the moditor have a kill switch if one canditate refuses to yeild the microphone?
2
the usuals asking what's been in the media lately.
what's going on is great income inequality and climate change (which are linked) and a congress that does nothing by design.
Questions for Hillary: In the 1st 100 days. what exactly are you going to do? And to do it, how are you going to get elected majorities? Coattails are what counts this election, though given recent congressional inaction, it shouldn't even be necessary. how many independents have a chance of being elected. how many democrats are running as focus group just-like-the republicans-but -slightly-different rather than taking on the real issues?
for Trump: Why would anyone vote for a draft dodger playboy running apparently to improve his business prospects ("Maybe people won't sue me if i'm president"), who may be in hock to the Russian mafia, which seems to include Putin these days?
Look at the financial compromising entanglements of all the questioners. Not just Fox, but who pays for all those ads, that keeps these people on the air. An example here, on the day GM a few years ago was cited for major rollover safety violations, the Today people were reviewing all those merits of this same "luxury" vehicle. It's always "Buy, Buy Buy" stuff you don't need, and often at ridiculous prices, all of which is killing the planet. None of these people are not linked to this.
what's going on is great income inequality and climate change (which are linked) and a congress that does nothing by design.
Questions for Hillary: In the 1st 100 days. what exactly are you going to do? And to do it, how are you going to get elected majorities? Coattails are what counts this election, though given recent congressional inaction, it shouldn't even be necessary. how many independents have a chance of being elected. how many democrats are running as focus group just-like-the republicans-but -slightly-different rather than taking on the real issues?
for Trump: Why would anyone vote for a draft dodger playboy running apparently to improve his business prospects ("Maybe people won't sue me if i'm president"), who may be in hock to the Russian mafia, which seems to include Putin these days?
Look at the financial compromising entanglements of all the questioners. Not just Fox, but who pays for all those ads, that keeps these people on the air. An example here, on the day GM a few years ago was cited for major rollover safety violations, the Today people were reviewing all those merits of this same "luxury" vehicle. It's always "Buy, Buy Buy" stuff you don't need, and often at ridiculous prices, all of which is killing the planet. None of these people are not linked to this.
Show of hands: How many of you are going to skip the debates; you already know what you're doing in the voting booth (maybe some of you will watch just to cheer for your side)? Now, how many of you are going to watch the debates, with popcorn, for whatever entertainment value can still be gotten out of this rolling dumpster fire of an election? How many would only like to see Gary Johnson / Jill Stein, to see if there is any reason left to go into the voting booth at all? Um-hm; me, too. Is there anyone out there actually wondering at this date about philosophy and policy differences between Clinton and Trump, and if so, did you plan to make up your mind between them by watching the debates? If so, where did you find a rock big enough to hide under for the last two years? - I want to buy me one of those.
2
Since this election is Grandma vs Grandpa I had hoped that at least one moderator would be under 35.
4
I am so looking forward to the debates and anticipating Trump spewing vitriol and hate and verbal spittle out of his mouth and nose and ears and wherever...and all the while blaming the moderaters.
2
"Even Mitt Romney, who ultimately lost to Mr. Obama, shook up the 2012 race late in the season by routing the president in their first debate."
How did this line make it past the editors? Which metric was used to declare that Mitt Romney "routed" President Obama? Romney openly lied about nearly all of his policy positions during the first debate -- it was a shocking and embarrassing performance.
How did this line make it past the editors? Which metric was used to declare that Mitt Romney "routed" President Obama? Romney openly lied about nearly all of his policy positions during the first debate -- it was a shocking and embarrassing performance.
3
Um, pretty much all the pundits and newspapers agreed that Romney was the clear victor in that debate.
See no evil, hear no evil. Reading the NYT live analysis of the Republican convention ("Holy moly.") worked fine for me, and the same with Trump's recent 'immigration' speech. Maybe I'll be gutsy with the debates, though, and mute the TV while reading. A quick rush of schadenfreude?
I request the media sit this one out and turn the moderation over to the best college debaters and philosophy students to raise the level of reason or at least identify the lack of it.
5
Seems a fair group, but why not a Camille Paglia, too?
Where is it written that no one from print journalism can be a moderator? One doesn't need a glossy, "professional" broadcast persona in order to ask questions on a one time broadcast, with guaranteed ratings.
Or, if the networks want to showcase their "talents", then pair each of them with a print journalist.
Meanwhile, this list of moderators is so unimpressive, and predictable, I'm yawning already. Where's Brian Williams? Even he's a better journalist than Chris Wallace.
Or, if the networks want to showcase their "talents", then pair each of them with a print journalist.
Meanwhile, this list of moderators is so unimpressive, and predictable, I'm yawning already. Where's Brian Williams? Even he's a better journalist than Chris Wallace.
1
I hope these are actual debates and not Trump's loud mouth for over an hour. His voice is beyond annoying... when he complains it sounds like a dying cat screaming while it scratches it claws down a chalk board. Personally I hope Hillary humiliates him badly.
18
Concerned about Trump bulling and not stop talking when it's Hillary's turn
I would love to see a fair debate because it requires thinking ,and tells what the candidate is like.
Hope these good people can handle Trump.
I would love to see a fair debate because it requires thinking ,and tells what the candidate is like.
Hope these good people can handle Trump.
13
Do you not know "what the candidate is like" after all this time?
The debates will be rigged against Mr. Trump. There will be "gotcha" questions like, "On what continent is France?" "Where does the sun go at night?" I tell you, it will just not be fair.
67
As an aside, the article lists briefly some characteristics of the debate moderators, including "an openly gay man".
I read that and did not immediately make the connection. I'm in my sixties and there was a time when I surely would have. Something is getting better. I don't know if it's me or us or both, but something is getting better.
I read that and did not immediately make the connection. I'm in my sixties and there was a time when I surely would have. Something is getting better. I don't know if it's me or us or both, but something is getting better.
1
Not even sure why they have moderators...they should get a referee. ...and that guy that shouts..."Leeeeettttsssss get ready to ruuuummmmbbbllle!"..
6
Excuse me, the statement that 'In 2012, after Candy Crowley of CNN fact-checked Mr. Romney and corrected him during a debate with Mr. Obama, she was criticized by Republicans for behavior that they claimed overstepped the bounds of a moderator.' is incorrect. She incorrectly corrected him. At the time of that debate Mr. Obama had not used the word terror in any form to describe the Benghazi attack. Do your current writers and editors not read your own paper?
3
Two Words: John Dickerson
Infotainment. Nothing more.
People who are paid tens of millions of dollars a year to fluff their hair (and that's just the men), will read a teleprompter, and spew whatever drivel their corporate masters tell them. Trump will try to act intelligent; HRC will try to act trustworthy. Key point: it's all an act, all of it.
As citizens, we will learn nothing at all about HRC or DT. The censored, scripted exercise will benefit no one except the networks and each "moderator's" popularity ratings.
The entire debacle will make all Americans look like mindless, prissy, self-centered, privileged fools. Were there no actual journalists anywhere available? Or are they all dead?
For real news of actual events happening in the real world, watch PBS, BBC and/or BBC America, and TV5 Monde (which broadcasts real news from France, Belgium and Switzerland).
American "news" is simply one big fundraising event.
People who are paid tens of millions of dollars a year to fluff their hair (and that's just the men), will read a teleprompter, and spew whatever drivel their corporate masters tell them. Trump will try to act intelligent; HRC will try to act trustworthy. Key point: it's all an act, all of it.
As citizens, we will learn nothing at all about HRC or DT. The censored, scripted exercise will benefit no one except the networks and each "moderator's" popularity ratings.
The entire debacle will make all Americans look like mindless, prissy, self-centered, privileged fools. Were there no actual journalists anywhere available? Or are they all dead?
For real news of actual events happening in the real world, watch PBS, BBC and/or BBC America, and TV5 Monde (which broadcasts real news from France, Belgium and Switzerland).
American "news" is simply one big fundraising event.
165
There are at least two PBS anchors who deserve (and one of them has deserved but been passed over before) to be moderators. Gwen Ifill and Julie Woodruff are both the best of the best right now. One of them should have been included.
PBS has been included before, in the personage of Jim Leher. Too bad he was selected for the Obama-Romeny debates though, he was well past his prime and let Romney get away with untruths and evasions.
PBS has been included before, in the personage of Jim Leher. Too bad he was selected for the Obama-Romeny debates though, he was well past his prime and let Romney get away with untruths and evasions.
3
I'd rather see Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Samantha Bee and Stephen Colbert as moderators. They would hold the candidates feet to the fire.
Agreed. Watch BBC, Deutsche Welle, France 24, even RTV.
PBS is part of the communications infrastructure, like the networks.
PBS is part of the communications infrastructure, like the networks.
Here's hoping that the first two debate moderators have real time fact checking of Trump's lies being forwarded to their ear pieces. Wallace is nothing but a talking parrot for Trump.
5
You act as if Clinton doesn't lie... She's no better than trump. Only problem is she's been proving it for years and people still vote for her.
Why not the best news interviewer in journalism: Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!? Oh yeah, the American public wants a show, not candidates answering important and insightful questions.
11
I hear Kanye is the moderator at the next debate.
Place the candidates in separate sound-proof booths. Give to the moderators the ability to switch "off" the microphone in each booth. Any candidate who does not directly (and immediately) answer the question posed will be silenced by the moderator. Time set aside for the response will elapse in silence. Likewise, any candidate who attempts to go beyond the allowed time allowed will be silenced by the moderator with the "off" switch.
If the crowd becomes unruly, then the moderator will clear the facility.
If the crowd becomes unruly, then the moderator will clear the facility.
10
Chris Wallace? Seriously? Why not just choose Sean Hannity and be honest about it. If the CPD is trying to choose moderators from different news outlets, then tell me the last time that anybody seriously considered Fox to be a news outlet.
34
He is Mike's little boy, after all...
1
THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR. Chris Wallace is an excellent anchor and I believe he is actually the ONLY fair and balanced person at Fox News and certainly the most legitimate news anchor. You should have watched him interview Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and you should have watched FOX News Sunday, and you would know that. He is nothing like Sean Hannity. Please stop making ignorant generalizations. I hate FOX News but I totally respect Chris Wallace, as I have seen him call out his right-winged guests and colleagues many times on his shows.
Hold on a minute there. My aunt considers Fox a very legitimate news outlet, and quotes its coverage every chance she gets.
As the media is not fair and impartial in their election coverage I do not expect the debate to be fair and impartial. Who will be making up and selecting the questions? Will there be fact checking immediately. Apparently Trump has received over $1 billion in free media because I guess he sells. So will that bias continue during the debates?
If we wanted true debates on the issues we should let PBS handle the whole thing. Oh wait, that would mean no $ for the corporate media.
The debates will just be more reality TV in its worse way.
If we wanted true debates on the issues we should let PBS handle the whole thing. Oh wait, that would mean no $ for the corporate media.
The debates will just be more reality TV in its worse way.
5
Green Party and Libertarian candidates are on the ballot in about 95% of voting districts nationwide. They should be in the debates!!! We need better options than the current Rep and Dem candidates. We need to democratize the debate process, so citizens can be better informed about their options. The guidelines for admission are set primarily by the Rep and Dem parties - this is a joke, which keeps us stuck with bad options in a 2-party system - time to open the debates to all candidates with a nationwide ballot presence!
10
DISAGREE!
No "candidates" like Stein and Johnson. The President will be Hillary Clinton or (God forbid) Donald Trump. Let's hear from them and no one else.
No "candidates" like Stein and Johnson. The President will be Hillary Clinton or (God forbid) Donald Trump. Let's hear from them and no one else.
Only persons who have a real chance at being elected are real candidates. We don't need to hear from fringe personalities in the debates. Oh, wait, we are. Trump is included.
2
They would be on the stage if they could get enough of a percentage of the popular vote and they did not get it.
Perhaps less "celebrity" moderators, such as a college history professor? This would ensure that the moderator's ratings are not a factor, and less inclined to favor "gotcha" questions. I do think Holt and Raddatz are more neutral. PBS should not have been excluded as their coverage is most consistently fair and balanced. No cheering audience as this is distracting and unnecessary. Rude interruptions and talking over must not be allowed.
39
Chris Wallace? Are you kidding me? They should add Rachel Maddow as a co-moderator fo make the panel "fair and balanced."
56
A suggestion for a debate question - show Mr. Trump an un-marked world map & ask him to point out Syria.
62
Obama still couldn't do that, please.
1
Please don't give Don the Con any study guidelines in the event that he actually prepares for the debates.
1
...or Mexico.
2
Wish the League of Women Voters still handled the debates. I probably won't watch them, sound bites and gotchas are so useless.
30
I second that.
1
More corporate infotainment. We need Colbert and his truth-o-meter, complete with the braaapppp and the flashing red clown's nose.
4
Slightly surprised there is no moderator from the social media/ e-news sphere. Someone from Politico, or Vox or Slate, for example.
Also, a bit disappointed that Rachel Maddow wasn't chosen.
Also, a bit disappointed that Rachel Maddow wasn't chosen.
3
It's too bad that we can't have real debates between candidates. Let the moderator choose a topic and then let them go at each other.
Calling what we have now "debates" makes a mockery of the word. It's nothing like the debates any debating society engages in.
Calling what we have now "debates" makes a mockery of the word. It's nothing like the debates any debating society engages in.
10
Jon Stewart would make more sense than just about anyone from Fox.
35
Three far left liberals and one mainstream moderate who always falls over backwards to convince everyone that he is not a right wing nut. Mr.Trump once again has all the cards stacked against him. The fix is in for Hillary Clinton even though the mainstream media is trying to convince us to the contrary.
1
Three mainstream, unbiased reporters, and a faux news apologist for the right wing of the R party. Why am I not surprised that FOX is included, although it does not and never has offered a news show, only entertainment for the confused.
I was wondering how long it would take to start with the alibi.
1
If Paul thinks that Holt, Raddatz, and Cooper are "far left," then he needs a better internet and TV connection up there in White Plains. There is no "fix" against Trump. He's not capable of participating in a debate on the issues. People like you frighten me. Just how benighted can people be?
Of course the debates will be rigged. The election is rigged. The system is rigged. Melanias plagiarized speech was rigged. Trumps hair is rigged. Etc...
Hi Ho!
Hi Ho!
9
Shamelessly biased here, but Joy Reid would be, in a word, awesome for going after Trump and his blowhard grandstanding. She doesn't let any of his apologists get away with their silly pablum on the shows she hosts, and I'm sure she'd do the same to Trump.
Of course, Clinton will make mincemeat of him anyway, so really, it doesn't matter who the debate moderators are.
Carry on...
Of course, Clinton will make mincemeat of him anyway, so really, it doesn't matter who the debate moderators are.
Carry on...
7
Agree about Joy Reid. She is great.
1
No matter who's the moderator Donald Trump will not fail to attack him/her if he/she says anything controversial about him, despite the fact that it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is unable to tolerate anything other than praise. If it's a woman moderator she better be strong enough to hold her own, which I'm sure Martha Raddatz is.
20
What will the moderator do if Trump goes overtime or interrupts as he often did in the primary debates??
Taking him off camera and cutting off his microphone would be the best option. Will the they have the nerve to do it??
Taking him off camera and cutting off his microphone would be the best option. Will the they have the nerve to do it??
46
Was PBS even considered to moderate? Fox isn't "news" after all.
And wait and see....the topic of climate change will be covered in one question only, if at all.
And wait and see....the topic of climate change will be covered in one question only, if at all.
16
Fox isnt news, but CNN, MSNBC, and NBC are? CBS and ABC are not far behind- but if you think they report the news truthfully and unbiased I have a bridge to sell you.
Everyone complains about the money in poltiics and lobbyists and such, I believe the media all aspects of it are truly the most dangerous weapons in today's world. I started traveling overseas over 20 years ago and used to make fun of the Chinese and Russian propaganda channels they called news- here we are today in this country and thanks to the 24 hour news cycle we are not far behind.
Everyone complains about the money in poltiics and lobbyists and such, I believe the media all aspects of it are truly the most dangerous weapons in today's world. I started traveling overseas over 20 years ago and used to make fun of the Chinese and Russian propaganda channels they called news- here we are today in this country and thanks to the 24 hour news cycle we are not far behind.
Debates aren't forums for comparing philosophical approaches to governing. Debates are revenue-generating spectacles for the moribund television infotainment industry.
10
These candidates are 70 years old, and have been in public life since Hector was a pup. There is no need for debates to get to know them. I know waaaaay more than I ever wanted to about both of them. TMI. Make it stop.
So many of these comments emphasize the importance of not letting the candidates get away with lying. I hope Holt, Raddatz, Cooper and Wallace are listening. If not, they will share blame for making the debates just another fact-free exercise in American politics.
20
Thank god Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff from PBS were not chosen. I've never watched a more glaringly obviously biased debate than the one they moderated between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They lost all credibility in my eyes.
1
Jj congratulations your comment from deep in outer space made it through and was posted here on earth, those 2 are actual journalists.
Nobody but the usual suspects: DC Beltway Villagers and the corporate media that brought us Donald Trump 24/7/365 with their celebrity infotainment horserace coverage of an election. All members of the 1% by income- if they are not all Millionaires they are all very close. One is the son of a Vanderbilt. Nice going representing the common folk. I guess Lloyd Blankfein was not available as he is out just doing God's work between hiring Hillary for secret speeches.
Ms Raddatz is the spokesperson for the Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex masquerading as an impartial outsider. Chris Wallace works for a Talk Show Channel that pretends to be a News outlet. Anderson Cooper works for a channel more interested in Anthony Bourdain than news despite being a so-called news network. Lester Holt reads headlines between ads for Depends Monday- Friday while his other gig is hosting a salacious program supposedly a news magazine produed by the News division.
Is this the best we can do? What happened to afflict to comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Why can't a real journalist like Amy Goodman who pays her own way get to question these people? Why can't a panel of people question them with people like Bill McKibben on Global Climate Change, William Black on Banksters and Andrew Bacevich on National Security?
We deserve better candidates, better coverage and real journalists questioning them. Apparently we will get none of that- just the same old song and dance.
Ms Raddatz is the spokesperson for the Military-Industrial-Surveillance Complex masquerading as an impartial outsider. Chris Wallace works for a Talk Show Channel that pretends to be a News outlet. Anderson Cooper works for a channel more interested in Anthony Bourdain than news despite being a so-called news network. Lester Holt reads headlines between ads for Depends Monday- Friday while his other gig is hosting a salacious program supposedly a news magazine produed by the News division.
Is this the best we can do? What happened to afflict to comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Why can't a real journalist like Amy Goodman who pays her own way get to question these people? Why can't a panel of people question them with people like Bill McKibben on Global Climate Change, William Black on Banksters and Andrew Bacevich on National Security?
We deserve better candidates, better coverage and real journalists questioning them. Apparently we will get none of that- just the same old song and dance.
15
Am I correct that those who complain about moderators have always been Republican candidates?
They don't like that facts and the truth have a liberal bias.
They don't like that facts and the truth have a liberal bias.
27
Clinton complained during the primary...
So we have an Afro-American, a Woman, a Gay-guy, and a Fox-guy. That should cover America.
2
Based on their moderator selection it would seem that the The Commission on Presidential Debates is simply a tool of the old Establishment media. C-Span is only an alternate and Internet news providers are not represented. Instead, we get three corporate liberals and one corporate conservative. The anger builds are the farce becomes more evident.
3
Stop calling these media events "debates." Debates have an established format; a resolution is proposed, such as, "Be it resolved, that the federal government should legalize marijuana." Then, there is a proposition side, and an opposition side, and each side argues either for or against the resolution. There is normally a judge who decides which side argued most persuasively and declares a winner.
These candidates merely have a Q & A with a television personality. They devolve into free-for-alls with insults and interruptions. They are purely entertainment events put on to garner television ratings.
These candidates merely have a Q & A with a television personality. They devolve into free-for-alls with insults and interruptions. They are purely entertainment events put on to garner television ratings.
305
The "proposition" is who is the candidate I should vote for. There are two clears sides. The "judge" is the voter who decides who is better for them. Because each voter cares about different things there needs to be discussions on many different topics. On each one person gets to speak then the other respond and more conversation follows if necessary. Just because this isn't like your debate club doesn't mean this isn't a debate. It might not be structured the way you are used to, but the "proposition" cannot be too narrowly defined or the majority of voters will not hear the information that allows them to judge the winner.
The most irritating aspect of any Q&A session/debate on TV is that the candidates ALWAYS answer the question they wished they had been asked and not the actuall question. I hope the moderators are aggressive about not allowing the candidates to stray..
21
Trump's unpredictability and temper have the potential to turn at least one of the debates into a mini-Jerry-Springer love fest. Sure hope that there are a sufficient number of burly Pinkerton detectives around to protect the other candidates, the moderator, and the camera operators, and to restore order.
3
Typical MSM article devoid of the important facts. Yes we have the celebrity moderator's names, and format, but how about the important rules like:
1. When response time is up will the microphones be cut off Y/N?
2. When an answer to a question is unresponsive, will the moderators indicate that FACT Y/N? This is necessary since many in the viewing public are low information/Fox/talk radio viewers and listeners.
3. Will the questions be based on what the candidates have actually stated as their positions Y/N.
Trump is a bully and tends to avoid answering direct questions with direct answers.
4. Question: Do these moderators have the integrity to stand up to him? I know that Ravitch and Holt do, but I have heard Cooper interview Trump, and I doubt if Cooper is to to the task.
1. When response time is up will the microphones be cut off Y/N?
2. When an answer to a question is unresponsive, will the moderators indicate that FACT Y/N? This is necessary since many in the viewing public are low information/Fox/talk radio viewers and listeners.
3. Will the questions be based on what the candidates have actually stated as their positions Y/N.
Trump is a bully and tends to avoid answering direct questions with direct answers.
4. Question: Do these moderators have the integrity to stand up to him? I know that Ravitch and Holt do, but I have heard Cooper interview Trump, and I doubt if Cooper is to to the task.
15
will these be in front of live audience. I hope not, but if so, how is the audience selected. The last thing I want to hear at the debates is the Trump groupies. I want to hear questions and answers, please turn off the mike when they start the campaign line and no answer.
2
I have long wondered why your #1 method isn't used in "debates" and in hostile TV interviews. I assume the interviewees would refuse to participate if that was the rule. It would be so much fairer and pleasant if only one microphone was on at a time.
I think Martha Raddatz will be great.
I think Martha Raddatz will be great.
2
If the Commission had to choose someone from Fox News, I guess Chris Wallace is the least odious choice (but still odious enough). With that being the case, I would have paired Rachel Maddow of MSNBC with Mr. Wallace as a counterbalance to his arrogance, scratched Anderson Cooper altogether and replaced Martha Raddatz with Gwen Ifill of PBS. Lester Holt is OK, but maybe a bit too nice to be able to curb the bombast, treacle and rudeness that will surely be on display from the Katzenjammer Trump. Just sayin'.
35
Kudos for Lester Holt. Can't imagine Brian Williams in the moderator's chair.
7
Where is Gwen Ifill? Oh, wait. Trump certainly would not entertain questions from a serious black female journalist.
What a joke! For the first time in recent memory, I will not be watching.
What a joke! For the first time in recent memory, I will not be watching.
25
She was eliminated because she and Judy Woodruff were astoundingly biased in favor of Hillary in the PBS democratic primary debate.
I recently viewed the film of the first televised presidential debate - Kennedy/Nixon 1960 - at the Kennedy Library. It was a serious university type of debate. The rules were clear. The moderators were in charge. The questions were substantive policy questions and time limits were enforced.
election process starting with the debates!
Is it too much to ask that this be resurrected? The primary debates (especially the GOP debates) were carnival shows that did not inform anyone of anything. Let's clean up our election process starting with the debate process.
election process starting with the debates!
Is it too much to ask that this be resurrected? The primary debates (especially the GOP debates) were carnival shows that did not inform anyone of anything. Let's clean up our election process starting with the debate process.
504
"Is it too much to ask that this be resurrected?"
Yes.
Yes.
You're talking about a time when the network news departments were separated from the advertising and entertainment departments, when there was less media competition, there was relative respect for the office of POTUS, when personal issues were never discussed (aside perhaps from the issue of Kennedy's religion) and all the candidates were educated intelligent people, regardless of where they stood on the issues. The media wasn't looking for the easy "got-cha! and generally did not repeat completely unsubstantiated charges (like those of the birther movement today).
Not one of those things is true anymore.
Since Trump is incapable of discussing the issues in a substantive way, I fully expect him to be in full attack mode and repeat the "criminal Hillary" label over and over. They'll be debating international policy and Trump will bring up the email server or Bill's relationship issues, etc. For some of the voters, Trump will come off as an incompetent clown. For others, his disruption will be seen as a positive because they feel the entire system is corrupt or not working and they seem as an outsider.
But even in the best of times, a debate can only change the minds of undecided voters and since competing candidates usually completely disagree on important issues, these are voters who are completely ignorant of the issues in the first place and/or are voting on personality, not issues. From an electoral vote standpoint, I don't see it changing anything.
Not one of those things is true anymore.
Since Trump is incapable of discussing the issues in a substantive way, I fully expect him to be in full attack mode and repeat the "criminal Hillary" label over and over. They'll be debating international policy and Trump will bring up the email server or Bill's relationship issues, etc. For some of the voters, Trump will come off as an incompetent clown. For others, his disruption will be seen as a positive because they feel the entire system is corrupt or not working and they seem as an outsider.
But even in the best of times, a debate can only change the minds of undecided voters and since competing candidates usually completely disagree on important issues, these are voters who are completely ignorant of the issues in the first place and/or are voting on personality, not issues. From an electoral vote standpoint, I don't see it changing anything.
1
....and bring back B+W TV!
NOT Anderson Cooper. We have seen time and again during any interview he conducts, he soft-pedals questions, does not follow-up and allows clowns like Trump to overwhelm him and take control of the interview. Strong moderators are required to do follow-ups, maintain control and hold the candidates feet to the fire and do not let up until the specific question they asked is answered.
Under no circumstances allow any of the candidates to wander off in to 5 minute generalized orations of them and their history that have nothing to do with the topic. Of course, then again, I could be dreaming, we are talking today here about access journalism. Do not offend the people involved for fear of not being able to have access to interviews later on down the road.
Under no circumstances allow any of the candidates to wander off in to 5 minute generalized orations of them and their history that have nothing to do with the topic. Of course, then again, I could be dreaming, we are talking today here about access journalism. Do not offend the people involved for fear of not being able to have access to interviews later on down the road.
25
Three white men and one woman - who will co-moderate with one of the white men. Yeah, that seems representative of America.
18
Check your screen for a color correction. Lester Holy is African-American.
Hey, Jerk: Lester Holt is not "white".
You should take another look at the photo on the top of the article.
Just for once I'd like to see a debate moderator ask some really tough questions and follow up by challenging the accuracy of a response or the discrepancy between what a candidate is telling us now and what he/she had told us in the past. Needless to say such an approach would not exactly work to The Donald's advantage but it would help to point out some of Hillary's evasions as well.
43
I guess you didn't watch the first Democratic primary debate, because Anderson Cooper did exactly that.
While I'll agree that there's plenty of fodder on both sides, I'm not looking for a series of "gotcha" questions in pursuit of some perceived false equivalencies.
Trump has a myriad of inconsistencies pertaining to statements and positions on *policy* -- from immigration, to the use of nuclear weapons, and abortion.
As much as der Donaldt's friends at Breitbart and Fox want to make them into issues, email servers and Benghazi have *zero* value in substantive debates on policy and governing philosophy. If they want to grill her on her flip flops on the TPP or on shutting down coal mines, I have no problem with that, but let's keep these challenges to questions about the real issues.
Trump has a myriad of inconsistencies pertaining to statements and positions on *policy* -- from immigration, to the use of nuclear weapons, and abortion.
As much as der Donaldt's friends at Breitbart and Fox want to make them into issues, email servers and Benghazi have *zero* value in substantive debates on policy and governing philosophy. If they want to grill her on her flip flops on the TPP or on shutting down coal mines, I have no problem with that, but let's keep these challenges to questions about the real issues.
1
The moderators should all work for the BBC. They don't let the debaters get away with anything.
1
Even if Trump's handlers successfully convince him to leave out his multi-repetitious "trust me, believe me, OK? " fillers I still see and hear emptyness.
22
I hope to be on a desert island for all of the debates. Someplace with no internet service or electricity. Maybe with just newspaper delivery so I can read at my leisure about the earth shattering issues that will surely be brought to light.
109
The "earth shattering issues" brought forth in the debates would fit on a postage stamp.
1
Pat, you don't want to miss the third one. The all knowing "Richie Rich" will be moderating!
... and after the election if Trump wins may I join you?
Gwen Ifill or Judy Woodruff or Hari Sreenivasan should absolutely been one of the moderators.
If you want real news, just spend one hour a day watching and listening to PBS NewsHour. Real journalism. Real unbiased reporting. Real data and information. Real context for the news. Real news from around the world. Real in-depth pieces that have been researched for weeks or even months. Real diversity of topics. Real news that's not corporate profit driven or owned. Real news in the public interest. You can even get your fix of the joke that is our election process - it's not the constant mindless repetition and Wrestlemania style of CNN, Fox and MSNBC (why were they left out from the moderators list?), but it's enough to keep you informed (all within the 1 hour of true journalism) without the unhealthy and even toxic dose from the cable networks and social media. As far as NBC, CBS and ABC, does anyone under age 40 actually get their news from evening network news? Watch PBS to be informed not be uselessly and falsely outraged or to reinforce your pre-formed biases.
Not having a moderator from PBS is an outrage. I guess they didn't want a real journalist asking real questions in the public interest. The debates are too big a ratings draw - CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS can endlessly sell ads hyping the debates as another Wrestlemania event ad nauseam from now until and during the debates - PBS does not and will never do that.
If you want real news, just spend one hour a day watching and listening to PBS NewsHour. Real journalism. Real unbiased reporting. Real data and information. Real context for the news. Real news from around the world. Real in-depth pieces that have been researched for weeks or even months. Real diversity of topics. Real news that's not corporate profit driven or owned. Real news in the public interest. You can even get your fix of the joke that is our election process - it's not the constant mindless repetition and Wrestlemania style of CNN, Fox and MSNBC (why were they left out from the moderators list?), but it's enough to keep you informed (all within the 1 hour of true journalism) without the unhealthy and even toxic dose from the cable networks and social media. As far as NBC, CBS and ABC, does anyone under age 40 actually get their news from evening network news? Watch PBS to be informed not be uselessly and falsely outraged or to reinforce your pre-formed biases.
Not having a moderator from PBS is an outrage. I guess they didn't want a real journalist asking real questions in the public interest. The debates are too big a ratings draw - CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC and CBS can endlessly sell ads hyping the debates as another Wrestlemania event ad nauseam from now until and during the debates - PBS does not and will never do that.
857
It's too bad we can't borrow some of the BBC correspondents.
Comparing the NewsHour to the BBC interviewers is like comparing a high school show to a professional Broadway one: there is no comparison.
The BBC correspondents ask insightful questions and challenge the accuracy of the interviewees' statements. On the NewsHour, interviewees can say the most outrageous and false things without any fear they will called on this.
Comparing the NewsHour to the BBC interviewers is like comparing a high school show to a professional Broadway one: there is no comparison.
The BBC correspondents ask insightful questions and challenge the accuracy of the interviewees' statements. On the NewsHour, interviewees can say the most outrageous and false things without any fear they will called on this.
3
Gwen is overrated, but not having PBS presence is notable. These debates will be extremely revealing and there is much on the line. The moderator needs a steady, parliamentary hand to keep the proceedings clear so we can actually learn something. The circus act of the last several months needs to be tamed so the facts can be learned.
Otherwise, I'm staying under the covers and taking the phone off the hook.
Otherwise, I'm staying under the covers and taking the phone off the hook.
As good as PBS NewsHour is, there is always a case of "false equivalence" in balancing two views, one of which has NO merit based on facts or science.
1
When the two parties got rid of The League of Women Voters (http://lwv.org) debates have become ludicrous. Stupid questions, no, change that to very stupid irrelevant questions, too short a time to answer, audience interruption, and candidates talking over one another. Total idiocy, I bet they will degenerate into a fiasco in the first ten minutes.
Take the debates away from the networks and return them to The League of Women Voters or to Vote Smart. One never hears about Vote Smart or The League of Women Voters in the press. Both are non partisan organizations working to facilitate the process, registering voters and providing data on candidates, Both are very useful for those wanting uncontaminated information.
On top of everything else there will be a totally ridicules stage straight out of a Superman comic book.
Take the debates away from the networks and return them to The League of Women Voters or to Vote Smart. One never hears about Vote Smart or The League of Women Voters in the press. Both are non partisan organizations working to facilitate the process, registering voters and providing data on candidates, Both are very useful for those wanting uncontaminated information.
On top of everything else there will be a totally ridicules stage straight out of a Superman comic book.
50
This is a bunch of establishment talking heads who prefer the status quo, and thusly these choices are a failure in part. At least one debate should have featured moderators from some organization such as 'Democracy Now' and a conservative counterpart in order to reflect the voters' search for an alternative to mainstream politics. As it is, my advice to Mr. Trump would be to ignore the moderators, and say what he has to say. For Mrs. Clinton, I would suggest just not showing up, and substituting panel discussions and press conferences with independent experts and journalists instead.
4
You don't want a debate, you want a partisan free for all devoid of facts and substance.
So glad you are not a consultant to either one of the candidates.
I have two $50 bets that Trump resigns as a candidate after the first debate because he doesn't take anything about the presidency and running this country realistically. And, besides, he'll never turn the running of his enterprise over to anyone else and focus on the welfare of the country first...look how he micromanages his campaign.
It's always a shame when Gwen Ifill isn't one of the moderators. She's consistently the strongest in my book.
156
This is not an election; it's a farce. Perhaps Gwen felt it beneath her. I certainly do.
1
These 4 are the moderators.
How about listing the people who will be asking the questions?
As for the debates, I hope these moderators will have done their homework to be able to tell fact from fiction from both presidential candidates. Also, I hope the debate will be with decorum and respect for each other, and not turn into a bar-fight! These moderators will have to act like referees at a hockey game!
How about listing the people who will be asking the questions?
As for the debates, I hope these moderators will have done their homework to be able to tell fact from fiction from both presidential candidates. Also, I hope the debate will be with decorum and respect for each other, and not turn into a bar-fight! These moderators will have to act like referees at a hockey game!
If I had the power, I would choose Joy Reid as a moderator. Talk about holding interviewees accountable for evading questions, misquoting data and just plain lying. Nobody is more deeply prepared with the facts than Ms. Reid.
you think trump will take th debates seriously ?
has he taken anything about this election seriously ?
14
I think most of the moderator choices are good ones but I deeply distrust Mike Wallace. Mr. Wallace comes across as a right-wing sympathizer and he fits in well at Fox. I hope he tries real hard to be fair to both candidates - he used to be a good newsman before he went to Fox so hopefully he can reconnect to his old self for the debate.
30
It's Chris Wallace. Mike Wallace, ex-"60 Minutes", is long time dead. Shame, he'd not let the candidates get away with sound bites or rants.
3
But we all know how fair and unbalanced Anderson Cooper is...give me a break
I totally disagree with Mr. Wallace's views on just about everything and have disdain for Fox, but what I've seen of him before, I feel he will rise to the importance of the occasion. Besides if Fox fired him for being professional, he has legitimate credentials to work elsewhere, unlike the majority of employees at Fox.
So Fox News, the propaganda arm of the Republican party, gets the last word. Wallace, already biased, will be under intense pressure from his employers to make sure the final debate is in the tank for Trump.
Will Trump's handlers get the debate questions from Fox in advance so they can script his answers the way they did for the fake Q&A with the Detroit black minister?
Will Trump's handlers get the debate questions from Fox in advance so they can script his answers the way they did for the fake Q&A with the Detroit black minister?
111
All very solid choices. Fair and reasonable journalists.
4
Each Presidential hopeful should wear a fancy dress costume of their own choosing and be given a limited supply of custard pies to hurl at the other. No responses to any question should be longer than 1 minute and all answers have to be sung.
In this way the true value of the present debates would be revealed, as well as their value in predicting the wisdom and leadership potential of the candidates.
Theater is fine, but it ought to be clearly advertised as such, not disguised as a serious business!
In this way the true value of the present debates would be revealed, as well as their value in predicting the wisdom and leadership potential of the candidates.
Theater is fine, but it ought to be clearly advertised as such, not disguised as a serious business!
22
Now you're talking! I think Trump should be allowed to burp his answers. Clinton has to sing hers. And I want the duck to drop down on the magic word. And if anyone says undocumented when they mean illegal, they have to take off an item of clothing. And any time the word email is mentioned, all parties including the audience has to do a shot. Bourbon only, none of that sissy Russian vodka stuff.
Big shoes, red rubber noses and squirting flowers too. A gong and hook should come into play. At the end all participants should join hands and sing and dance the "I'm a little Teapot" routine. And please, don't bleep the expletives, the most genuine moments we'll ever see.
Mark you calendars folks to see Donald Trump make a bigger fool out of himself than he already has as he makes a feeble attempt to debate HRC. And watch as his lemming like supporters have their tiresome toddler tantrums as they yammer on about the liberal moderators and how everything is rigged etc. Enough said.
14
I thought that the excellent Ms. Martha Raddatz has moderated the Presidential debate before. Lester Holt finally getting what is due to him a great hardworking newscaster. Mr. AC and Wallace are seasoned ones as well in their own capacity.
So I will be-looking forward to the debates unless Donald Trump decides to back out and there is every possibility he could.
His attacks oh Carly Fiorina was looked down upon same with Mrs. Clinton`s bathroom visit so hopefully he behaves with Madame Clinton being a seasoned debater.
But I will not hold my breath over it.
So I will be-looking forward to the debates unless Donald Trump decides to back out and there is every possibility he could.
His attacks oh Carly Fiorina was looked down upon same with Mrs. Clinton`s bathroom visit so hopefully he behaves with Madame Clinton being a seasoned debater.
But I will not hold my breath over it.
1
These debates are a abysmal waste of time.
9
Why?
3
Here are a few suggestions for the moderators: (1) If someone keeps talking after their allotted time is up, immediately shut off his/her microphone; (2) If someone interrupts the other one who is properly responding to a question, penalize the interrupter by not letting him/her speak for the next ten minutes at all; (3) If someone doesn't answer the question, ask it again, and if there is still no answer, comment that the person has refused to answer the question; (4) If someone says something patently false, ask that person why they have said something that is patently false; (5) Follow up on ridiculous answers with another question or two, in order to really clarify that candidate's position; and (6) Make sure both campaigns understand these rules in advance; then really enforce them.
These suggestions might improve the quality of the debates.
These suggestions might improve the quality of the debates.
228
1 will obviate the need for 2. Mic on only when it is your turn. Why hasn't this always been the rule?
@AM: And watch as five minutes in someone stomps off stage to the cheers of his mob.
1
the twelfth of never.
Where is John Dickerson?? I thought he did a great job in the primary debate
12
Appearing in his role will be Chris Wallace.
The moderators need to be engaged and call out the misstatements on both sides. Too often they are focused on what they're going to say next and don't even appear to be listening attentively. They are the best chance the public has to fact check a candidate in real time.
287
But this group of entertainers will not ask the hard questions. Trump will walk all over them because he too knows how to entertain (not me).
I agree with your observation.
The moderators should have a group of assistants in the background checking the facts. The moderators should then have earpieces to get the facts from the "checkers" in the back, and then ask the important questions to set the facts straight.
You can't expect the moderators to be carefully listening and at the same time check the facts. It's just too much work and attention in a short time.
You can't expect the moderators to be carefully listening and at the same time check the facts. It's just too much work and attention in a short time.
Regardless of the moderator, I would be shocked if this is a conventional debate. I am expecting parallel monologues because Trump (for all his egomaniac behavior) isn't so stupid to think he can go toe-to-toe with Hillary on substantive policy issues and he is too incurious to be amenable to prep coaching. Instead, he will pull his evasive tactics and spew his invectives, which should appeal to his base and not beyond it.
204
Really?? You think Trump is aware of his limitations? You give him too much credit, in my opinion.
13
The quality of the moderators corresponds with the quality of the candidates.
Let the circus show begin.
Unfortunately Mr.Johnson and Dr.Stein won't be there to class up the act.
Let the circus show begin.
Unfortunately Mr.Johnson and Dr.Stein won't be there to class up the act.
3
Nor should they be, really.
2
America's health care system is neither healthy, caring, nor a system.
In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.
We are not educated well enough to perform the necessary act of intelligently selecting our leaders.
-Walter Cronkite
In seeking truth you have to get both sides of a story.
We are not educated well enough to perform the necessary act of intelligently selecting our leaders.
-Walter Cronkite
10
What's wrong with moderators fact-checking the candidates? They need to release the rules that govern moderators because I feel very strongly that candidates should not be allowed to lie. Romney told some whoppers in that first debate and the moderator sat there silently. That is an obscenity in and of itself.
121
I'm not so worried about the moderators as I am about the audience. I sincerely hope every effort is made to keep the debates from devolving into a WWF-like cacophony of jeers from unruly audience members.
448
I think the real risk with audience response is that Trump will be seduced to the "dark side". When he feels he is not connecting with his audience he devolves into the unabashed nationalist that lies at his core. As one who dreads him becoming president, I hope the rules allow audience response. That would assure that Trump would show his true colors on the national stage. If, after that, he wins . . .
Excellent point. Based on the way Trump has encourages uncivil behavior, there is no guarantee Trump supporter will not chant "Lock Her Up".....then what?
There is nothing as distracting as the audience members making a sound, whichever sound it is and the applause had forced me into turning off the debates as it is a waste of time and really, what does it mean except the audience does not deserve to be there. No respect shown in applause; it is like the biggest screamer in the kindergarten room. "See me, hear me, I am important" is what it says. It i hard enough to care about the debaters and moderators much less the white trash in the audience.
How are the moderators going to insure Clinton and Trump answer the questions? It seems to be a trend in the media to allow them to skate right past the question and bring something else up.
23
At least the Wallace debate is the last one. By then early voting will be well underway, people will be sick of watching these things, and he won't be able to do much harm. I have no problem with the other three, as long as they find a way to keep Drumpf from hogging more time than he's allotted. Also hoping that all but the town hall will have no audience (though I suppose that's unlikely).
6
Kill switch on the microphones should be mandatory. If the republicans had had access, theirs would have been a food fight. And absolute silence from the audience... That goes without saying. Time to restore seriousness to the clown show Trump created.
57
The only news here is the certain 24/7 media coverage of Trumps whining and complaining about the selection.
20
Candy Crowley, she was despicable when she intervened in the 3rd debate with Obama and Romney!
Worse than saying anything, she was dead wrong when she came to Obama's defense!
After the Rose Garden statement on 9/12 Obama went on CBS with Steve Kroft and had this exchange:
"Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans."
He clearly did not call it a terrorist attack.
Worse than saying anything, she was dead wrong when she came to Obama's defense!
After the Rose Garden statement on 9/12 Obama went on CBS with Steve Kroft and had this exchange:
"Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack. Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?
Obama: Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans."
He clearly did not call it a terrorist attack.
1
No, he didn't... because he's not an idiot who thinks with his gut. What he said, was.... "Well it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack..." How is that wrong or a poor choice?
13
Edge, you clearly need to be sharpened....
7
Obama later claimed that he called it terrorism in the Rose Garden when he clearly did not!
You know kind of like Hillary saying she never sent or received emails that were marked classified!
You know kind of like Hillary saying she never sent or received emails that were marked classified!
The NFL sent a letter to Trump about the debate schedule . . . oh, wait
8
I'm still betting that none of these debates ever takes place, along with the publication of the Holy Tax Returns.
8
Well, then let's see that letter! and tax returns, transcripts, birth certificate, bankruptcy filings, service record (oops!), vaccination record (oooops!), consent decrees with local and federal courts, payroll records for all employees not US citizens, and those 8mm videos made with Roy Cohn & friends in the back rooms of Studio 54, yes those videos, Donald. (I think that's where Woody Allen filmed the scene where he exhaled into a pile of coke).
My best guess is that DJT will use the debates to release a trove of Putin-supplied emails hacked from HRC and the DNC, edited in the manner of the Planned Parenthood videos. Even then, he'll lose.
My best guess is that DJT will use the debates to release a trove of Putin-supplied emails hacked from HRC and the DNC, edited in the manner of the Planned Parenthood videos. Even then, he'll lose.
1
Please, please, please don't let the candidates spout off untruths without challenging them. I know the right enjoys their talking points and sometimes they will even issue a correction but it isn't until days later when no one is paying attention. This is more than a media sporting event.
579
And the Left Doesn't? Clinton has been given more passes by the media than any other candidate in history. It's a joke.
"I know the right enjoys their talking points"
Yes, the country is fortunate indeed that Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party abhor talking points and unfailingly stick to the straight scoop.
Yes, the country is fortunate indeed that Ms. Clinton and the Democratic Party abhor talking points and unfailingly stick to the straight scoop.
Agreed, guys. The knows how to play that game also. In this debate I think it is Trump who stands the bigger chance of going off reality (Benghazi!). Regardless, I want a moderator that isn't afraid to speak up to either candidate with, "That's not true, what really happened was..."
1
All people form the infotainment industry. Not much hope for any kind of real questioning. Only questions to draw attention to themselves in the hope of raising their ratings. How about somebody not connected to the entertainment business?
4
Congrats, Mr. Holt! Now you have the opportunity to show some credibility by not backing away from Trump. Do not allow him to lie unanswered, to call names, to interrupt Mrs. Clinton, or spend debate time on issues like his hand-size. No matter whether Trump accuses you of not treating him nicely. America will thank you for being a serious moderator, even if Trump doesn't.
55
I like Lester but he's too nice for this job.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
1
Frankly, a novice reporter could be the Debate Moderator. Even he/she could trip Trump. There is no need to know anything about the Candidates, no need to know the length or breadth of issues, in fact nothing. As a matter of fact, it is going to be so one-sided. Clinton will lay out her vision and problem-solving but if Trump gets the microphone he will be repeating, repeating, repeating his disgusting one-liners or insulting everyone else including crooked Hillary. But then again he may not make an appearance, coward that he is.
14
Will Trump be at the first debate?
12
I hope all of these moderators use their position to challenge any lies from either candidate and they allow both to offer their policies without being talked over. Now I know this will limit Trump to having to actually know what he is talking about which will be a real challenge.
Do not let Trump to throw out unproven insults by requiring him to provide facts to back up his accusations. I know this will be difficult because the media doesn't care about facts, they only want controversy so that they can keep selling time to advertisers rather than providing voters with the facts.
Anderson Cooper should be removed and replaced with a PBS moderator. CNN is Trump enabler, with the refreshing exception of Brooke Baldwin. She pushed everyone to get down to the facts, Anderson Cooper challenges nothing and accepts sound bytes from Trump surrogates as gospel.
Do not let Trump to throw out unproven insults by requiring him to provide facts to back up his accusations. I know this will be difficult because the media doesn't care about facts, they only want controversy so that they can keep selling time to advertisers rather than providing voters with the facts.
Anderson Cooper should be removed and replaced with a PBS moderator. CNN is Trump enabler, with the refreshing exception of Brooke Baldwin. She pushed everyone to get down to the facts, Anderson Cooper challenges nothing and accepts sound bytes from Trump surrogates as gospel.
14
Welcome to debates for profit everyone. Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, Anderson Cooper and Chris Wallace will be doing nothing but showing off for other members of the press and the political consulting complex. They all want ratings and love the "gotcha" game. They all helped put The Don on the ticket by talking about him ad nauseum for months. What a terrible, terrible joke on ill-informed American people.
ALL Presidential debates should be held on C-SPAN with neutral moderators. Retired news people seem to speak out most clearly about true issues - if they aren't trying to get ratings for their money masters - and might be a good choice, along with esteemed academic people.
ALL Presidential debates should be held on C-SPAN with neutral moderators. Retired news people seem to speak out most clearly about true issues - if they aren't trying to get ratings for their money masters - and might be a good choice, along with esteemed academic people.
110
"Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine." Walter Cronkite
Boy, has things changed.
Boy, has things changed.
5
All debates should be broadcast on open network stations. Citizens should not have to be cable subscribers to see these debates.
Fact checking should be scrolled at bottom of the screen.
Moderators should be able to cut off microphones for any name calling, talk overs, or personal attacks.
Keep the candidates on topic. There is still a lot voters need to know about both of them and their detailed proposals for solving America's many problems.
Fact checking should be scrolled at bottom of the screen.
Moderators should be able to cut off microphones for any name calling, talk overs, or personal attacks.
Keep the candidates on topic. There is still a lot voters need to know about both of them and their detailed proposals for solving America's many problems.
14
Ha ha ha! Too funny!
1
What a farce. Celebrity "broadcast journalists" who are all experts at false equivalency and superficial softball questions, and who will be harsh on Hillary Clinton and intimidated by Donald Trump. These Presidential so-called debates become less meaningful and relevant with each election cycle.
66
You are so Right! Why cant the audience as the questions before hand and the moderators make sure they answer the questions.
Each election becomes less meaningful with each election cycle, so it's only fitting that the debates do too. How long until enough people notice that, so that we can stop having window dressing on our coronations?
1
I don't think Holt will be intimidated.
Let's see - PBS, which will not moderate, is considered the nation's most accurate news outlet, while FOX, which consistently over the years has been considered the least accurate, is to host the most important of the three debates. Looks like a bit of rigging of the debates in favor of Trump.
335
One thing is that it could backfire if Wallace truly acts like a journalist and grilles both candidates equally.
If Wallace comes across as biased it could actually hurt Trump more.
If Wallace comes across as biased it could actually hurt Trump more.
NO PBS?
FOX?
Why not ESPN or Comedy Channel?
FOX?
Why not ESPN or Comedy Channel?
265
I would LOVE to see Jon Stewart moderate a debate between these two!
46
The Comedy Channel would be more legit in many ways.
2
Aside from gaffes and showmanship, no value whatsoever is provided to the people via these "debates."
There needs to be far more structure. Candidates should have to stick within their allotted speaking times. The rebuttal rules should be clearly defined and enforced. Shut off microphones if need be. The candidates should be forced to actually answer legitimate questions and given enough time to explain details. Academic experts and fact-checkers should provide real-time analyses and ask difficult, thoughtful follow-ups. Interrupting, making disrespectful remarks, and lying should be penalized.
Each year, political discourse in this country hits new lows. It's maddening.
It is time to rework the system and provide voters with a level of communication and conversation befitting of the greatest country on earth.
There needs to be far more structure. Candidates should have to stick within their allotted speaking times. The rebuttal rules should be clearly defined and enforced. Shut off microphones if need be. The candidates should be forced to actually answer legitimate questions and given enough time to explain details. Academic experts and fact-checkers should provide real-time analyses and ask difficult, thoughtful follow-ups. Interrupting, making disrespectful remarks, and lying should be penalized.
Each year, political discourse in this country hits new lows. It's maddening.
It is time to rework the system and provide voters with a level of communication and conversation befitting of the greatest country on earth.
654
So true...For us to call the Republican question and answer free for all in the lead up to the primaries a debate, is clearly wrong in the context of a true debate. The candidates must answer the same questions to provide for comparison; The moderators must stick strictly to the allotted time limit for both answers and rebuttals. Fact checkers would be essential in this age of "if I say it, it must be true" mentality. Moderators should be permitted to provide actual facts and ask candidates of evidence of their so called truths along with statistics. do not permit audiences who will jeer, chant, and whistle in response to an answer. Nothing is more distracting to us at home when you view with a biased audience in the house..
7
Can there be anyone left who does not get the policy and governing philosophy differences between the two main party candidates? Anyone not brain dead for the past two years? Of what use has been the last four months or the next two?
Academic experts and fact-checkers would not be accepted as unbiased. The opponent should be able to serve that role, and the listeners are going to have to be responsible to figure out who is correct. I totally agree with your microphone comment. The TV networks can use their own judgement as to whether to show the candidate whose turn it isn't moving his/her mouth with no sound coming out. I hate the TV shows where 2-4 interviewees are yelling over each other. Obviously viewers want that, or the shows wouldn't allow it.
Well, at least they chose Martha Raddatz.
And yes, shut off the mics when their time is up— you-know-who can't be trusted with any kind of rules or formats.
I'm cringing already.
And yes, shut off the mics when their time is up— you-know-who can't be trusted with any kind of rules or formats.
I'm cringing already.
204
Better yet - shut of Drumpf's mic and then award Clinton an extra minute for every word over he continues to goes (or vice versa). Giving the opponent more time is a fair consequence for talking too much.
3
One woman co-moderator and no minorities as moderators. You'd think given the issues on the table, the Commission would try a little harder. I also hope there is no audience at all, just a televised debate 1960's style. That would benefit everyone. This is not the Thrilla in Manila, after all (I hope).
12
No minorities? Lester Holt, no?
3
Lester Holt is African-American.
4
Lester Holt.
3
A shame about Candy not being a moderator. What if, as in 2012, the Democrat candidate needs to recover from a disastrous first debate performance?
1
I wish the debate host/broadcasters would turn off the microphone for the contestants when it isn't their turn to speak. Too much moderator energy has to go into just getting bellicose and verbose candidates to respect the rules of the debate.
811
I agree with Cpnstant Reader, especially with Trump behind a microphone. It is like candy for him. If he sees a microphone his mouth immediately opens and nonsense spills out. Cut off the microphone when it is not his/her turn.
1
Don't try to act like Hillary didn't undercut Bernie multiple times in the debate.
1
Some candidates who do not know the answers (guess who?) actually benefit from interruptions, that way the matter of debate is diverted and they get to change an inconvenient subject very quickly.
2
ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX & NBC ?
There is one glaring omission; PBS.
Danny Schechter in his award-winning documentary film, Weapons of Mass Deception, showed us PBS led in media accuracy.
I challenge the members of The Commission on Presidential Debates.
There is one glaring omission; PBS.
Danny Schechter in his award-winning documentary film, Weapons of Mass Deception, showed us PBS led in media accuracy.
I challenge the members of The Commission on Presidential Debates.
389
I plan not to view this charade.
It, from my perspective, is infotainment & will not add to my body of knowledge.
It, from my perspective, is infotainment & will not add to my body of knowledge.
1
You gotta be kidding. CNN now leans right. And Fox is so far to the right they've fallen off the edge of the table, and shouldn't be included at all.
14
tjpratt - CNN,ABC,CBS all stay as much in the middle as possible so as not to offend their corporate advertisers.
1
Why don't you say anything about Gary Johnson? Why don't you cover all of the candidates that will be on the ballots in all states. He is polling consistently in the double digits and would poll even higher if you would include him in the polls. I used to consider you one of my all time favorite news sources but the bias has been strong with your coverage this election. Not impressed.
#letGarydebate
#letGarydebate
10
This article is about debate moderators, not participants.
15
The article is focusing on the moderation for the event which has been a sore subject in the past, recently touched on by Trump. Prior articles have addressed the inclusion of third party candidates in the debates (as dictated by rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates).
2
.....and who checks them for being wired?
6
We will see whether any of these journalists are able to call out Trump or Clinton when or if they make false statements. I've been unimpressed with Cooper's performance on his CNN show, letting way too many misstatements go largely unchallenged. He's no Candy Crowley. I actually think Chris Wallace may be the best of them. As much as Wallace tries to be FOX-like, his father's genes occasionally show through.
189
Yes, and the first time one of them "scolds" Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton for people not "trusting", e-mails, the Clinton Foundation or any other "get Hillary" questions I turn them off. It is time we have some SERIOUS POLICY QUESTIONS.
2
In the case of Faux News, you should put the word "journalists" in quotes.
2
Glad to see someone acknowledge that Chris Wallace has done a good job in other debates. I understand the reflex hostility towards Fox, but we should give credit where credit is due.
2
Please. We need informed moderators (these are) who fact check! How else can the American people see past outright lies and gross exaggerations by the candidates.
38
I was hoping for at least one African-American and at least one Hispanic moderator.
5
"I was hoping for at least one African-American and at least one Hispanic moderator." Deb S. Lawrence, Kansas Just now
Lester Holt is African American!
Lester Holt is African American!
22
Lester Holt is African-American.
7
I was hoping for a female...
I'm satisfied, particularly with Lester and Anderson.
6
Chris Wallace shouldn't be anywhere near this process. Fox News is an organ of the GOP, everyone knows it. Yet we pretend it's a legitimate news organization...poor choice.
335
And you think that CNN is not biased, that is laughable!
3
CNN bends over backwards to be impartial, so much so that they look like fools.
7
I actually think Chris Wallace is a great journalist and I HATE Faux News. He got lumped in with all those other fools pandering to Ailes' sexual fantasies, but he's a straight shooter and has actually criticized his co-workers in the past over their extreme ideological partisanship. He's got a spine and I'd sure take him over Anderson Cooper.
1
The main job of these moderators is going to be controlling Trump's motor mouth, and making this a debate instead of a shouting match. Even the otherwise great Jim Lehrer did a very poor job of keeping the candidates under control when he was moderator.
Microphones must be turned off when the other candidate is speaking. Both candidates must have their feet held to the fire, and they must be forced to answer the questions asked, not those that they would rather have been asked. They must not be allowed to interrupt the other.
Otherwise, this is not a debate, it's just another bad television show.
Microphones must be turned off when the other candidate is speaking. Both candidates must have their feet held to the fire, and they must be forced to answer the questions asked, not those that they would rather have been asked. They must not be allowed to interrupt the other.
Otherwise, this is not a debate, it's just another bad television show.
279
Proof?
3
Mary - Check out politifact and compare HRC to Trump.
7
She is a liar. Unfortunately Trump is a bigger liar. I don't have the numbers at hand, but here is the Politifact scorecard:
Trump:
True9 (4%)(9)
Mostly True (11%)
Half True34 (14%)
Mostly False (17%)
False (35%)
Pants on Fire (18%)
Hillary:
True (22%)
Mostly True (28%)
Half True (22%)
Mostly False (14%)(
False (11%)
Pants on Fire (2%)
So you can holler and write exclamation points all you want. Depending on how you want to score it, Trump is the bigger liar, somewhere between 3 and 9 times more lies.
Trump:
True9 (4%)(9)
Mostly True (11%)
Half True34 (14%)
Mostly False (17%)
False (35%)
Pants on Fire (18%)
Hillary:
True (22%)
Mostly True (28%)
Half True (22%)
Mostly False (14%)(
False (11%)
Pants on Fire (2%)
So you can holler and write exclamation points all you want. Depending on how you want to score it, Trump is the bigger liar, somewhere between 3 and 9 times more lies.
3
I hope they prohibit audience reactions. Go back to the policy of applause at the beginning and end, and silence in between. A debate should be serious business, not a carnival sideshow.
1083
AGREE!
No claques.
No claques.
8
This is a carnival sideshow. What do you expect, the Lincoln / Douglas debates?
2
If it were serious business, we would not have these two candidates. The election is done. Only the magic show is left, and you want to take away that part.
2
All but Wallace are fabulous choices: straight-shooting professionals.
Wallace? Well, at least (alongside Megyn Kelly) he's the most journalist-like talking head at Fox.
Wallace? Well, at least (alongside Megyn Kelly) he's the most journalist-like talking head at Fox.
15
So you are saying that three dedicated, partisan, fanatical Democrat supporters out of four is not good enough for you?
7
Nothing in their reporting indicates that.
6
Some one to make nearly everyone happy, someone to make nearly everyone unhappy. So, a pretty good group.
5
Trump is unmanageable. He will talk over the moderator and Hillary. Both should be given a specific time to answer each question, and their microphones shut off at the end of each allocated period.
401
But candidate should be give more that ten to thirty seconds to speak.
1
Moderators should be equipped with Tasers so they can ensure "extreme vetting" of these candidates - and to keep them in line as soon as they interrupt or go over time.
4
Just what we need in this election, more news entertainers running the show. Is this the best we can do?
60
I don't consider Lester Holt or Martha Radditz news entertainers.
29
Holt and Cooper are good. They will not be intimidated by Donald.
13
Martha Raddatz was by far, the best moderator of the last election.
She moderated the VP debates and was superb.
She moderated the VP debates and was superb.
10