THE CANDY CROWLEY DEBATE.

THE CANDY CROWLEY DEBATE. I have grumbled a number of times about my dissatisfaction with the formats of the Presidential debates. For example, I posted here four years ago about how “Presidential debates are spoiled by journalists who get in the way of discussions between the candidates.” (That post linked to a New Republic article by Michael Schaffer with the subtitle ““Why journalists are so bad at running presidential debates”.) I am posting this a couple hours before the second debate between the two Presidential candidates, so I have no idea what effect an intrusive moderator will have. It is clear, however, that neither candidate wanted an intrusive narrator. This article reports that both campaigns entered into an agreement which limited the role of the moderator in tonight’s “townhall” debate. Here is a copy of the agreement. I like the rules that they agreed on. (Look at it this way: every minute that the moderator is talking is a minute that the candidates are not talking.) The moderator, Candy Crowley, has announced that she will not abide by the agreement, despite protests by attorneys for both campaigns. According to the article, Candy Crowley cites “the Charlie Gibson townhall meeting and the Tom Brokaw townhall meeting” in the past for how it should be done. I think that how she thinks of the past debates is a tipoff as to some of the emotion behind her position. For a lot of the members of the media, the debates are about the moderators and not about the candidates.

This entry was posted in History, Journalism, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to THE CANDY CROWLEY DEBATE.

  1. Carl Davidson says:

    Looks like Candy lived up to her intent judging by her interjection during the Libya argument. This could start a whole new discussion on the function of the moderator in future debates, i.e. call out one of the parties who is deliberately misleading, or even clearly lying. I’ve seen the exchange four or five times and wonder whether she wouldn’t have been better off giving Obama time to reply because it appeared he was ready to jump if she hadn’t. It’s now the second day after the debate and I haven’t seen much discussion on this aspect of it on the TV news/discussion programs. Nevertheless it’s even conceivable that a future candidate would refuse to debate unless the rules specifically banned the moderator from interjecting. E.g. Rick Perry, who, as I recall it, was incorrect (a polite word under the circumstances) in many of his statements and appeared to not have a grasp of a number of subjects. A perfect out for him!

  2. Pingback: FACT CHECKING DURING DEBATES (COMMENT). | Pater Familias

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.