Poll Position: Do we need moderators in presidential debates?
Through three debates — two between the presidential candidates, one featuring their running mates — there’s been one constant: The moderators have been part of the story each time. PBS’ Jim Lehrer was faulted by some for being too hands-off; ABC’s Martha Raddatz for being too quick to interrupt; CNN’s Candy Crowley for playing fact-checker during one particularly heated exchange between President Obama and Mitt Romney.
Do we need moderators for presidential debates?
- Absolutely (131 Votes)
- Never (53 Votes)
- Only in some of them (46 Votes)
Total Voters: 230
Loading ...(As an aside, as someone who’s moderated several debates myself, Crowley was wrong to intervene in that manner for two reasons, neither of them partisan: First, it wasn’t her place to offer an opinion; if she was trying to cut off the debate and move on to another topic, she should have simply said, “This one will have to go to the fact-checkers.” Second, fact-checking isn’t part of the moderator’s job largely because the moderator has too much else going on to be counted on to be a reliable fact-checker, from keeping track of speaking time to paying attention to which question comes next and even whose turn it is to give the first answer to that question. Crowley was, we can only assume, going off memory about what Obama said at a press briefing almost five weeks earlier, and with more than 60 million people watching. She was just as likely to make a mistake or misspeak as the candidates were.)
Rather than arguing about which moderator did the best job, or which style is best, my question to you today is: Do we even need moderators for these debates?
Throughout the primary season, Newt Gingrich famously challenged anyone and everyone to “Lincoln-Douglas style debates” without moderators. How much would you like to see Obama and Romney taking turns asking each other questions rather than relying on journalists and “undecided” voters bound to be accused of being partisan? (One thing I thought was clear from Tuesday night’s debate was that none of the questioners sounded all that “undecided” — their questions were aimed at one candidate or the other.)
Ah, you may ask, but who will cut off the candidates when they speak too long if there isn’t a moderator?
Well, the first three debates have proven human moderators aren’t very good at cutting off the candidates anyway. A CNN honcho even defended Crowley’s over-allowance of time to Obama — a repeat from Lehrer’s moderation of the first debate — on the ludicrous grounds that Obama speaks more slowly than Romney and might not have gotten in more actual words during his extra minutes of speaking time.
In any case, technology would do a much better job: Simply flash a red light when a candidate has 5 or 10 seconds left, and then cut off his microphone when the time has elapsed.
And what about the questions? Wouldn’t the candidates just make the debates meaningless or overly partisan by getting bogged down in gotcha-style questions?
Oh, you mean like George Stephanopoulos, apropos of nothing, asking GOP candidates about banning contraceptives last January?
It’s a problem that already exists with moderators. But it’s also one that, if the candidates themselves did it, would force voters to evaluate the candidates for asking such questions rather than letting the moderators take the blame. If Obama or Romney asks a gotcha question, he’d have to defend his choice as much as the other candidate had to defend his answer.
You might guess where I land on this issue, for at least one debate per cycle. But what say you? Do we need moderators in presidential debates?
It’s the return, after a brief hiatus, of the Poll Position question. Answer in the nearby poll and in the comments thread below.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
266 comments Add your comment
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
October 19th, 2012
12:33 pm
Hint, Cheesy: Most normal people take exception to listening to blatant lies about their fathers.
Reading comprehension is tough I know.
You dont even understand the point I was making.
Totally over your head but thats ok.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:34 pm
@Stephenson Actually, I think those reports exist, but someone forgot to link to them from the website. Here’s one: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/43552
Dum-Bass
October 19th, 2012
12:34 pm
If there is a moderator, it needs to be someone WHO CAN BE IMPARTIAL, and that would exclude any news media, period. Maybe even someone from overseas who just served as a “question asker” and timekeeper and nothing more. I don’t know who is responsible for appointing them this year but so far they have all leaned left, even if subtlety. Even the last one has Bob Schieffer, and good grief, he is such a far left liberal I’m amazed his right arm hasn’t fallen off! BTW, I got a good laugh out of looking up Candy Crowley’s middle name. I was already calling her something rather derogatory using an “A” as her middle initial. You can figure it out as it’s pretty common. I stumbled across her name on google and noticed it was indeed “A”. When I looked it up it was just 3 letters as I had been using, but no it wasn’t that, her middle name was instead “ALT” (yep, unusual). Can’t believe how close it actually was to “Candy A–”.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:34 pm
Oh, and Cheesy?
If all you’ve got to run on is Big Bird, binders and Tagg Romney, you need to get some bigger issues and ideas.
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
October 19th, 2012
12:35 pm
Kyle ignores the fact that Crowley was right.
It only matters to him that she made his guy look bad.
You see being right isn’t the point.
Thats what they have come to.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:35 pm
“You dont even understand the point I was making.”
Then make it clearer, Cheesy.
But I don’t think you can.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:37 pm
“Kyle ignores the fact that Crowley was right.”
Uh, Cheesy?
Crowley walked back her “correction” the very next day.
You see, she was wrong.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:38 pm
“The man has been running for President for 20 years.”
Actually, just 8.
Is there anything you won’t get wrong, Cheesy?
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
12:39 pm
The whining of the Republicans about the debate moderators is pathetic. Any journalist more even handed than the Fox News propaganda machine is for them a liberal that should be excluded.
The candidates participate voluntarily in the debates, and should abide by the rules. Romney is being praised because he wouldn’t allow himself to be cut off by Jim Lehrer and because he spoke over the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, but it only shows his lack of discipline.
Sid
October 19th, 2012
12:40 pm
I’ll call your moderator, push all in & ask why we even have debates? there’s zero correlation between what they say in them & what they end up doing if they’re elected. it’d be a lot simpler (& more accurate) to just have accurate accounting of their campaign funding (including indirect sources) – that’s all you need to know…
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:40 pm
@Tiberius: It’s not indefensible; it’s not even an issue. His statements were clear enough, and I might’ve preferrred more caution than he exercised. Those making an issue of this seem to be upset that less caution was not applied; data from multiple sources would be good before the US President risks credibility of the nation by weighing in.
@Hillbilly No. If you believe that, you’re part of the problem. Facts are facts. Factcheckers are necessary because otherwise people will use their “gut instinct” to figure things out, and they will often be wrong and easily be manipulated. The reason “one man’s fact is another man’s lie” is that most people don’t bother to fact-check and most people are ignorant and looking for an easy win for their society. Good fact-checking will keep people honest and reign everyone in. I don’t want liberals to get facts wrong any more than I want conservatives to. Distance from facts is enormously harmful to our democracy. The whole reason we have universities, science, doctors, and other forms of expertise is that going by “gut feelings” is a very lousy way to look at the world.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:43 pm
“Romney is being praised because he wouldn’t allow himself to be cut off by Jim Lehrer and because he spoke over the moderator, CNN’s Candy Crowley, but it only shows his lack of discipline.”
Yeah, ’cause no alcohol, smoking, caffeinated beverages or drugs for 65 years, all the while accomplishing almost everything he’s set out to do with his life-long sweetheart by his side, is a sure sign of an undisciplined person, MarkV.
Steve
October 19th, 2012
12:45 pm
Moderators are there for one reason – provide structure, facilitate decorum, and to get candidates to answer questions. As we saw in the town hall, it was too easy for either to take a question asked by an audience member and roll the subject into memorized talking points.
With no moderator, it will just be the candidates giving stump speeches and pre-written zingers carefully crafted and opinion-tested by the campaigns. Moderators should not fact-check, but they should force candidates to actually answer the questions asked.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
“It’s not indefensible; it’s not even an issue.”
Our Ambasador and 3 others are dead due to insufficient security via a terrorist attack, and you call it a non-issue, Pat?
I sure hope Obama uses that argument on Monday night. We can call the election for Romney right then and there.
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
12:46 pm
Candy Crowley was right when she corrected Romney. Whether she stepped back in face of the onslaught from the right is immaterial; what matter are facts, and those support what she told Romney during the debate.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:48 pm
“Moderators should not fact-check, but they should force candidates to actually answer the questions asked.”
Exactly, Steve!
Maybe Bill O’Reilly should moderate the next debate.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:49 pm
@Tiberius You know full well that when I say it’s a non-issue, I am talking to the confusion some people have over when it was called a terrorist attack, not the unfortunate fact that there was an attack to begin with.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:49 pm
“Candy Crowley was right when she corrected Romney. ”
Repeating the false narrative over and over doesn’t make it right, MarkV.
She walked it back because she got caught being wrong.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:50 pm
@Tiberius Except she wasn’t wrong. I pasted Obama’s quote earlier in the discussion.
Hillbilly D
October 19th, 2012
12:51 pm
Pat Gunn
We’ll just have to agree to disagree and that’s a fact.
Del
October 19th, 2012
12:52 pm
Anyone who has objectively followed the Benghazi failure with resultant loss of life knows that the Obama administration was attempting to sell the story that the attack was a spontaneous reaction to the video. That was exactly the context in which Obama described it in the Rose Garden. The mention of terrorism was only a generic reference. However, the words aren’t the issue. The issue is with the documented previous attacks, the declined requests for additional security along with CIA reports and video/audio showing the attack and the fact that there was no proceeding demonstration the Obama administration still attempted to deflect focus away from the facts for two weeks. Today it’s even being reported that the two former SEALS who were killed were not part of the councilates security team. They were in Benghazi working with the CIA trying to find out where and how the former Libyan army’s rocket launchers ended up. When it was learned that an attack was in progress they went there to assist. Evidently, they managed to save lives, while losing theirs in the process. This was either an attempt to cover up incompetency or an attempt to suppress truth just before an election.
getalife
October 19th, 2012
12:53 pm
“We’ve got to name this condition that he’s going through,” Obama said, referring to Mitt Romney’s attempt to undergo a last-minute transformation from a severe conservative to a severe moderate. “I think it’s called Romnesia. That’s what it’s called. I think that’s what he’s going through.”
“Now,” he continued, “I’m not a medical doctor, but i do want to go over the symptoms with you—because i want to make sure nobody else catches it.”
And what might those symptoms be? Here’s one example: “You know if you say if you’re for equal pay, but you can’t say if you’ll sign a bill for equal pay, you might have Romnesia.” And: “If you say you think women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have Romnesia.” And another: “If you say you you’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, but you stand up in a primary debate and say you’d be delighted to ban abortion in all cases, then you definitely have Romnesia.”
But you don’t need to worry, said the President. “If you have Romnesia, here’s the good news—Obamacare covers preexisting conditions. We can fix you! We can make you well.”
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:53 pm
@Hillbilly If you want to live in a world where Democrats and Republicans can lie with inpunity because nobody fact-checks them to keep them honest, and everyone thinks they can figure out things in life by relying on their gut rather than going with experts, you are contributing to making society worse. This shouldn’t be a partisian issue. People make mistakes, and they should be called out on it. People lie, and they should be called out by it. We need experts and people going over records to help with that.
JDW
October 19th, 2012
12:54 pm
First off I agree with Kyle on Crowley’s “fact checking” and I am pretty sure she does as well. I think it just slipped out.
Second these are not debates they are discussions. As someone that has actually debated, a real debate is quite structured, judged at the time and you are not allowed to exceed your time. Part of the skill is to frame your comments within the time.
That said I think a Presidential debate format should offer the opportunity for flexibility. Part of the problem we have is that we are trying to limit the time to 90 minutes…why…so what if it takes 2 hours or 2 and a half.
I would much prefer a format where there are a defined number of questions…one candidate has say 2 minutes to respond the other 2 to rebut and then if the moderator thinks there is value in additional discussion or a candidate has more to say equal timeslots can be allocated for as long as desired. There should be NO interrupting. The debate continues for as long as it takes.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
12:54 pm
“Anyone knows”? What sources do you have for that assertion?
Tom Mariner
October 19th, 2012
12:56 pm
Of course we need moderators. But Candy Crowley showed us how dishonestly slipping in a ringer for one candidate can damage the whole reason for the debate which is to just for once let Americans see the candidates without the biased words and image selection of a press that has abandoned all journalistic ethics.
We grant the Candy Crowley’s of the “press” latitude because they are protected by the First Amendment — and not one of them has apologized to the American voters for abusing that trust. They think it is perfectly moral to fool viewers into thinking they are getting fairness when it is words right out of the campaign office. Lacking any real journalists in this country, I would suggest a moderator for each side throwing softball “give me your talking points” questions while yelling “you lie” at the other guy — but that’s what the candidates themselves are supposed to do. So maybe because of the dishonesty of the American “press”, maybe nobody would be better.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:56 pm
“You know full well that when I say it’s a non-issue, I am talking to the confusion some people have over when it was called a terrorist attack, not the unfortunate fact that there was an attack to begin with.”
Actually, Pat, I didn’t. I’ve learned that liberals will say just about anything to maintain their innocence in these discussions.
However, you seem to forget the abstract nature of Obama’s comment in the Rose Garden, and his repeated denial of a terrorist attack for over two weeks. You seem to forget that demonstrators don’t carry RPGs to demonstrations – terrorists do.
The administration’s narrative about having AQ on the run has been removed from speeches, and it’s because they can’t make that claim now that they have no more room to spin this attack. Even the MSM is calling them out for the whitewashing of facts In any other administration, Susan Rice wouldn’t have been fed the lies, and if she did it on her own, she’d have been asked to resign or be fired. But not this administration – it’s never their fault for anything bad happening on their watch.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
12:59 pm
“@Tiberius Except she wasn’t wrong.”
Even Candy Crowley disagrees with you, Pat.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed
October 19th, 2012
1:04 pm
“If you say you think women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let employers deny contraceptive care, you might have Romnesia.”
Nobody’s buying the lies, getalife.
Except for the already brainwashed.
No one is proposing denying access to contraceptives.
No one.
Del
October 19th, 2012
1:08 pm
Crowley did attempt to walk back her comment during the debate by acknowledging that Romney was “correct in the main” This is a much bigger issue than Obama’s word choice in the Rose Garden. Those who purport to dislike lies, misinformation and cover ups should be paying very close attention to the facts that have been surfacing. These fact show a far greater concern than narrowly focusing only on what Obama said or how he said it the day following this incident.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
1:08 pm
@Tiberius It didn’t seem at all abstract to me; it seems a plain reading of what he was saying that he thought it was a terrorist attack when he made those statements in the Rose Garden. Whether he toned that down later as he received more information that might’ve been conflicting or not is another matter; I don’t know what he got from the intelligence services at his disposal, and neither do you. I think it’s bizarre that timing over characterisation of the attacks is a political point, given that how all this was handled involves so much relevant information that the public will never be privy to (how the intelligence forces that aid the presidents work and how quickly they give particular conclusions is probably something only a handful pf people in America really know).
I’d be curious what specific facts you or the MSM are claiming are being whitewashed; if we can get into the specifics we can look at them (and calls for specifics are almost always healthy in discussions like these because, being as human as politicians, if we’re allowed to handwave, we’ll handwave).
I’m willing to tolerate a certain margin of error from elected figures, just as I am of businesses and ordinary people. We don’t have crystal balls, and sometimes we need to take risks that impact people’s lives. If we knew that Hurricane Katrina was coming with compete accuracy, the US would’ve (hopefully) bought the exact right supplies to deal with it. Because uncertainty is part of life, we need to weigh the costs of preparedness for every contingency with the effects of those contingencies, and sometimes that means people will die. This is some of the same reason people don’t wear a suit of armour when leaving the house; reasonable risk and unforeseen consequences are part of life and we judge things based on reasoanability rather than strictly by results. I don’t blame BushJr for Katrina having happened. I don’t even know enough to claim the response was incompetent. Bad things happen, and I assume good faith and competence by default; if, looking back, I see bad judgement leading to bad results, I’ll criticise. Bad results alone arn’t enough.
(This is admittedly easier because I’m not a Democrat or a Republican).
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
1:12 pm
@Tiberius Regarding contraceptives, there are a few people (like Santorum) who have been aiming to reduce or eliminate access to it, but you’re right that flat out elimination of public access to them has not been part of at least anything I’ve seen from Romney’s campaign, and I don’t believe he aims to limit them in that way. Romney is more vulnerable on the issue of insurance and contraception; Romney supported the Blunt amendment, which allows employers to deny contraception as part of insurance plans; that’s an issue.
Del
October 19th, 2012
1:15 pm
Namejacker@1:11pm.
jconservative
October 19th, 2012
1:15 pm
“One thing I thought was clear from Tuesday night’s debate was that none of the questioners sounded all that “undecided”.”
I totally agree with this. There was not an undecided body in the room.
During Crowley’s “fact checking” there were two sets of applause from two different sets of people.
Del
October 19th, 2012
1:22 pm
It takes a real slime ball to come on this blog at 1:11pm steal someones blog handle and post that kind of vulgar trash. What a coward.
Kyle Wingfield
October 19th, 2012
1:22 pm
Del @ 1:22: Yep, there are some disturbingly sick people in this world.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 19th, 2012
1:23 pm
@ Pat Gunn:
Abstract: “No acts of terror”
Specific : “This act of terror in Benghazi “.
Got it?
And whitewashing? Sending out Susan Rice on every Sunday talk show 5 days later to claim spontaneous demonstrations when you were told 24 hours after the attack that it was a planned attack is whitewashing.
breakfastfor2
October 19th, 2012
1:24 pm
and what are the presidential debates for? aren’t their policy positions already known from the manifesto and their websites?
Lambeau
October 19th, 2012
1:27 pm
I think its funny how Dems are pushing so hard for Obamas words the day after the attack to say that he called/implied the attack a planned terrorist attack. That would actually hurt him. Even if he blatantly said “It was a planned terroriest attack” that day, then the question needs to be asked: “Why then after that first response did you continue to say it was a protest caused by a video for two weeks?”. Hes put himself between a rock and a hard place and he can’t escape. At this point he is trying to delay the inevitable. It will come up during the last debate and he will try to have an answer, but either way he wont be able to justify anything.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 19th, 2012
1:28 pm
Pat, don’t get caught up in the liberal misuse of the word “access”. Not paying for something isn’t denying access.
DeborahinAthens
October 19th, 2012
1:29 pm
Hillbilly D, a fact is a fact, not an opinion. The problem with the Repugs for the last 20 years is that they that if they keep repeating the lies over and over, the ding bats that elect them will believe them. Many of these “opinions” come to mind. Cutting taxes creates jobs (fact:starting in 2003 when the Bush tax cuts kicked in, job growth screeched to a halt). There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (fact: our intelligence told us there were none, none were found). The sale of oil from Iraq will fund the wars (fact: two unfunded wars have crippled this country and will continue for many years. Now we have Romney with his own brand of invention, pulling numbers out of his hat right and left. Screeching about Obama’s policy in Syria. If Romney is elected, I give us four months before we have boots on the ground in Syria. So, facts are facts. You Repugs have your opinions colored by lies.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
1:29 pm
@Tiberius I believe, before some conservatives decided to make this a talking point, were you to have given people a transcript or video of what Obama said and asked if he was calling the act terrorism, almost everyone would’ve said yes.
I suspect your characterisation of Rice’s role is incomplete. “Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response” (a Susan Rice quote from one of the stories you seem to be talking about) seems plenty nuanced and lighthanded to me, given that stories rarely arrive complete, certain, and fast for real-world events.
BuckeyeInGa
October 19th, 2012
1:30 pm
We need moderation or there would be a lot of talking over each other. We need fact checker(s) at the debate. The cable shows after each debate often present their own “customized” facts.
sailfish
October 19th, 2012
1:30 pm
tiberius
After reading threw some of your comments, I can conclude that you definitely have a massive ego and that your are as blindly partisan as those whom you attempt to dispatch.
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 19th, 2012
1:32 pm
Man, I hope the namejacker wasn’t using mine.
I hate when that happens.
resno2
October 19th, 2012
1:32 pm
the media has already proven itself incapable of moderating debates effectively, so how about each candidate choose a member of their staff to ask questions of the opposing candidate? Or better yet, have each VP candidate ask the questions.
MarkV
October 19th, 2012
1:33 pm
“Even if he blatantly said “It was a planned terroriest attack” that day, then the question needs to be asked: “Why then after that first response did you continue to say it was a protest caused by a video for two weeks?”
Except that he did not.
Pat Gunn
October 19th, 2012
1:35 pm
@Lambeau It’s possible that initially it seemed certain to be an attack, then later information came in and caused them to be less certain, then info from the intelligence community came in to confirm the initial assessment. Either way, I would’ve preferred more initial caution (although again, I’m not a Dem). I am willing to assume, without more information, that there are not any actual problems but PR on this; it’s not an easy task to figure out how and when to communicate things with the press when data is always coming in that might in theory overturn past conclusions.
@DeborahinAthens While much of that is fair, Democrats have lied or been incorrect too; if you look at the independent fact-checking sites, they also often declare things Democrats have said to be wrong. Good fact-checking helps everyone. (As an aside, calling Republicans “Repugs” really isn’t the way to convince people to listen to you; in my opinion the less this is a pissing contest, the more room there is for it to be a discussion).
Tiberius - pulling the tail of the left AND right
October 19th, 2012
1:36 pm
Pat, your assessment regarding Rice’s comments might be correct if the administration hadn’t been told 24 hours after it occurred that it was a planned attack.
getalife
October 19th, 2012
1:38 pm
Still upset Candy called our mitt’s lie.
I am still upset cons and their failed party refused to unite to show patriotism and resolve to get the terrorists like all Americans on 9/11.
You chose to get our President instead.
This proves the right are terrorist sympathizers.
This is a permanent mark on your record.
It is disgusting.