After the most recent presidential debates, a strong need for change is evident. While the three CNN moderators’ most frequent comments were either softball questions or fawning adoration of the candidates, the three CNBC moderators seemed bent on inciting worthless arguments rather than steering meaningful discussion. Coddling a candidate to enable them to shine or posing questions to ensure they will fail is not in the job description of a moderator. Essentially, the role has expanded to include personal opinions and objectives — with an ever-present influence of ratings.
The quest for stellar ratings and increased viewership has proven to be a negative tenet in presidential debates (and the media in general). While concern for quality content should be high, instead viewers are seeing the result of severely censored questions or the opposite — questions with tones that connote a personal vendetta against the candidates’ policies.
Although the Republican debate hosted by CNBC was undoubtedly the most profitable night in the network’s history, they must now manage the backlash due to the moderators’ antagonistic attitudes and lack of preparation. In similar fashion, the CNN Democratic debate left some viewers disappointed with the lack of substantive questions. Admittedly, the Democratic debate was much more organized, but could this simply be due to the sheer number of candidates and have nothing to do with the moderators?
In addition to concern for ratings, maintaining the status quo is another issue with presidential debate moderators. Without fail, the only individuals fortunate enough to preside over a presidential debate have been famous news anchors. However, it does not take a broadcast journalism degree to moderate a debate. Sure, fact checking and great staff work behind the scenes is beneficial, but most people can direct or stifle an argument. The job of the moderator should essentially be to ask the questions and enforce the time limit. In addition, the questions must be less doctored to become effective.
Since an inordinately large portion of the population currently believes that Washington is too exclusive already, initiating a new standard for presidential debates would prove to be more efficient and encourage political involvement.
New moderators and better questions can spark this change. Choosing a noteworthy individual who is completely apolitical or randomly selecting a representative from the general population could prove to be a respectable solution. Creating a new standard of personal time limits with actual incentives for staying under time is also an idea. Moderators’ credibility has been lessened over the last few presidential elections simply because of their willingness to bend to the status quo.
Candidates should most definitely have to answer difficult questions, but only if the moderator has not been reduced to an instigator.