| || |
October 17, 2012 - Blaine Hyska
One day, I suppose, we’ll have machines serving as debate moderators.
After all, we have phones and personal electronic gadgets today that will listen to what you have to say — and answer your questions.
This comes to mind given the recent public attention on the moderator’s role in the presidential debates. Some people think Candy Crowley, chief political correspondent for CNN, was too active during Tuesday’s town hall debate between Romney and Obama. During the first debate, PBS' Jim Lehrer received poor reviews because he was not active enough, and ABC's Martha Raddatz, moderator for the vice presidential debate, graded somewhere in the middle.
So we have a debate on the debate moderator. Interesting. A machine would probably settle the matter.
Better yet, the public ought to know where the moderators stand.
The candidates, whether they are running for dog catcher or the White House, are up there giving their views on everything from tick collars to terrorism. The least a moderator could do is make public his or her feelings.
I think these moderators should be required to tell the public if they are a member of a political party, who they voted for in the last election, and if they have made or plan to make a donation to a political campaign.
Umps can’t bet on the World Series, and that’s just a game.
It’s time for moderators to come clean.
News, Blogs & Events Web