The moderators for this year's presidential (and vice presidential) debates have been getting a lot of attention, much more than I personally can remember in a past election. What do you value in a debate moderator? What do you think her/his role is and what has been your favorite "moderator moment" thus far?
due October 19
Both moderators for the presidential debates have acted as metaphorical punchingbags to the candidates. Jim Lehrer was easily overthrown, and Martha Raddatz allowed the Romney to speak overtime about topics not addressed by the question. Crowley attempted to keep the candidates in control but was still spoken over and ignored when she tried to advance the debate forward. I feel that the moderators are just placeholders in the tradition of debating while the debate itself becomes increasingly trivial seeing as how every candidate does whatever he desires.
ReplyDeleteI personally disagree with the decision to hire journalists to moderate debates. As with political parties, media outlets have grown affiliations with certain ideals and points of view. Being on television doesn't qualify you for anything. I have no suggestion for replacement moderators, but it's also not my job. I would value somebody who effectively silences the candidate when their turn ends and who isn't afraid to say no. The moderators tend to concede to the candidates' requests showing great weakness in their ability as an authority figure. I would like a moderator who actually moderates the dialogue and asks the candidates to expand their answers rather than allowing vague statements that explain very little.
By far, the vice presidential debate has been the most civil. I feel this can mostly be attributed to the venue in which both candidates sat face to face with the moderator. The town hall debate allows the candidates to roam freely and easily ignore time limits or rules. Even the first debate positioned the candidates far from the moderator allowing them to ignore him easily. The mentality of talking directly to a crowd creates certain tensions that prompt the candidates to make their point at any cost, lest they appear weak to the public. This also attributes to "lying", which can't reasonably be questioned in such a brief time period.
I have several favorite moderator moments: every time a candidate continues talking, without breaking, directly over the moderator as he or she attempts to progress the discussion. The juxtaposition of their ramblings creates entertainment comparable to The Real Housewives of Atlanta and it makes me cry inside.
I tend to agree. I think these have been the best debates in a long time and yet I still find myself wondering what the point is. There's certainly not much of one for those who have been paying attention all along--just more recitation of their talking points. I think that when a candidate hits the time limit a buzzer should start going off and not stop until the candidate shuts up!
DeleteIn this year’s presidential debates the moderators seem to be more involved in the debate rather than fading into the background. In a moderator I look for someone who is able to keep the debate running smoothly and productively. In the last presidential debate, Romney and Obama were speaking to each other and Romney addressed some of his questions towards Obama. In a situation such as that one, I expect the moderator not to allow the candidates to speak to each other, and to simply answer the questions asked with specific detail. In the second presidential debate, Romney continued to talk over Crowley and attempted to continue defending himself and his position on oil, but Crowley didn’t allow that to happen for too long and took control over the debate and Romney’s responses, that was my favorite moderator moment.
ReplyDeleteThe debate moderator plays a role that is more significant than I think people have noticed in the past elections. I think that with the heated nature and high stakes of this election people have truly started to noticed the significance of a competent moderator. The past debate was unique in that the moderator served as what a moderator would be in a fight- sort of a referee to keep people in line and within the time constraints. Conversely in the first debate the moderator also had to pose the questions for candidates. In a sense, the first moderator took on a lot more- and we also had the sense that he didnt know what he was getting himself into.
ReplyDeleteIn a moderator I value a lot of things, but I want to emphasize that I think it takes a brave soul to take on a Presidential debate. First, the moderator must obviously be an eloquent speaker who is also able to articulate questions that average citizens and viewers will be engaged in. They have to make sure that they guide the questions so as to force the candidates to stay on topic and actually answer the questions, which can be very difficult ( as we have seen). Also, the moderators must be firm and able to cut the candidates off when needed or put them in their place.
My favorite moderator thus far was the last one. Although she didn't ask the questions herself she kept the candidates on task enough to answer more then a handful of questions. She was not afraid to interrupt them and even at one point was able to verify some facts in a fair and reasonable manner. She embodied pretty much everything I would recommend for a moderator.
I agree that this is a very, very tricky job. And one with nothing but critics. I think it would be really difficult to keep on top of everything.
DeleteI think that it is important for the moderators to receive a lot of attention. They do a lot more during these debates than I think most of the public really thinks. I really never saw this or noticed the importantance of moderators until this year’s Presidential election. I value many different qualities in a moderator.
ReplyDeleteMy first qualities I look for in a good moderator would be someone who actually understands the topics and is credible to ask these questions to the candidate. I say this because I think that it is important to be able to be flexible during debates, if the candidates are focused and wanting to take their answers to a whole different level in order to prove their point, and it is in fact relevant, then I think that the moderator should be knowledgeable enough to be able to continue the conversation in that direction. I also think that the moderator should be knowledgably about the questions and issues that are brought up during a debate because seeing someone strongly concern for certain issues motivates me to further inform me to make myself more aware and informed on the issues brought up as well. I also value a moderator who is able to keep the debate going in the right direction. By saying this I mean for the debate not to be going off on too many tangents. A good moderator is able to step in and tell the candidates to switch and go onto a new topic if the candidates are repetitive and the moderator should be able to be bold enough to cease a candidate from going too off topic and digressing themselves. Moderators must be productive and sufficient when asking their questions. I also would like to see moderators silence the candidates who are trying to speak out of turn, instead of letting the candidates walk all over them. Finally, a quality I would like to see in a moderator would be to not only be specific in their questions to the candidates, but also to have the candidates be just as specific when answering the questions. Having the candidates produce a more specific answer will allow the audience grasp a better understanding of the candidate’s response rather than what they have heard on television or advertisements.
I think that the debates have gone smoothly this campaign, but I also agree with that they could have gone smoother. I think that the first moderator for the first presidential debate let the candidates take advantage of him. He would let the candidates talk for longer time than they were allowed to. The moderator would not speak up when the candidates were talking over him to get their point across. What I found very interesting about the first moderator that was different than I have ever seen was that he allowed the candidates to address their answer directly to the other candidate rather than answering the moderator’s question to the public audience and/or moderator. I think that it was very interesting to see this, but from looking at the situation this way, I think the moderator needed to put an end to that. Allowing the candidates directly speak to each other could get out of hand and become very unprofessional real quick.
I think that the second moderator was very calm and informative. She was sufficient on staying on topic but also letting the debate take itself into its own hands when certain topics became very interesting and controversial, more than others.
But, in my opinion the last moderator was my favorite. Which you may find funny to say due to the fact it was not her that was asking the questions. However, I did find that she was very productive and helpful in keeping the candidates on topic when answering the questions. I also think she was the best about holding the candidates responsible to specifying their answers. She was not walked on by the candidates, meaning she would not let them interrupt her and she did not hold back to interrupt them in order to help create better understanding of the question and answer.
The debate moderator is simply a person which tries to have the debate flow smoothly and on time. Their job is to keep track on how much time each candidate talks about a certain topic and how much time each candidate has. This person is important because it's the responsibility to have the debate flow smoothly and operationally while maintaining order and being on time. This may be the moderator has to use some work force to stop the candidates from talking to much or for going over the time limit they have for each topic. The roles that they play or simply timekeeping and keeping track, flow of time. I don't watch many politics but this for my favorite moderator moments thus far is the second presidential debate this year where Candy or Sandy or whatever name is raises her voice to try to stop Romney from going over. The acts of her doing this were not my favorite part but the reaction that Romney had once she told him to shut up was priceless. The look that we have owned slaves was that of a child doing something wrong and disobeyed his mother's orders. I don't watch much political TV or debates so coming up with a good moderator story are hard for me. But every time I do watch TV or watch politics it seems that the middleman or the moderator is always on the side of President or the main party.
ReplyDeleteThis election, the moderators have gotten a bit of attention. I think it is important to know who will be facilitating these debates. This election in particular has become a personal one. Many issues have come about which make the moderator's gender matter. I have heard a lot of talk in the media about whether a woman as a moderator would raise more questions about women's rights and health issues than a man would. There is also the question of whether the moderator is considered to be biased in their politics. Moderators who lean more to the right would ask different questions than the latter. Also, they might treat the candidates differently for the same reason.
ReplyDeleteThis election, one of my favorite moderator moments was from this past debate. Being town hall style, I feel like it would already be difficult to facilitate. However, Candy Crowley snapped back quite often, especially at Governor Romney, for going over his allotted time. I felt that she did a good job at keeping the debate going how it should. In contrast, I did not think that Jim Lehrer did as good of a job. He did not crack down on the candidates and asked some pointless questions.
The question of gender bias is one worth considering I think (which then makes you wonder why this is the first set of debates to have more than one female moderator. In the past I think Gwen Ifill has moderated the VP debate). And since women make up more than 50% of the population in this country, I think women's issues deserve some space in these debates. Even with two female moderators though, I don't think they've gotten much attention.
DeleteThe role of a moderator is to remain bias and neutral during a debate. They should also remain calm, but stay firm. I want them to be able to stand up to the candidates and say when their time is up and enforce it. During the second debate, many people talked about how Candy was bias toward Obama. While I can kind of see why, I don't think it impacted the debate in any way. My favorite moderator moment was when Romney stated a false fact in the second debate and Obama had Candy clarify that it was indeed not true.
ReplyDeleteThe things I would value in a moderator is someone who can take charge of the candidate’s so they do not talk for ever and one that can call them out for going off topic or not answering the question so that the candidate’s would have to actually answer the question unlike what normally happens. The moderator also should be able to keep it several and make each person have equal amount of time to respond without the other being rude and bullying his way in like Romney has been doing for both elections. Also the moderator should be a person like the lady in the vice president’s debate that can seem like she is the end all of the debate so the candidate’s have to answer her not to an audience like the president debates. But this is more of my opinion of what I would want to see in the conduction of the debate rather than what would be desirable of a moderator. My favorite moment of the moderators as of right now is basically all of the VP debate with Biden being rude and hilarious with the moderator trying to have him be better controlled though I think most of that debate was amazing with Biden’s reactions to the Republican’s VP candidate.
ReplyDeleteWhat I value in a debate moderator is how well they coordinate the people debating. They need to stand strong and organize the debate properly. The debate moderator has more pressure on them than most people would think. If they can control the people debating and get them to stop speaking when their times up it makes things flow much smoother. Without a good moderator the debate can go all over the place but a good moderator can keep a handle on things and produce a much better debate.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite moment so far with the moderator is when Romney believes he gets the final response to Obama’s answer because Obama got to reply after him in the first section. The moderators response was comical and made Romney look pretty dumb. I think with the debates we have seen the moderator could be a little more assertive with both candidates to keep things moving in the right direction.
Yes, I'd say it doesn't do a candidate any good to get picky about the time or the order. It just makes them seem petty and childish. Especially now that viewers typically have a time count on their screen throughout the debate, we all know darned well who talked more and whether we think that mattered.
Delete