Finally, with only two weeks until the 2012 presidential election, the painstakingly long campaign season is almost ending. A few months ago, the nation was ready to hear President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney confront each other on their distinctive plans regarding foreign policy, the economy, health care and more. I think it is safe to say that the American people — more specifically the moderators — have heard enough after these four debates, which unfortunately turned out to include more useless squabbling than ever before.
This year, Jim Lehrer of PBS, Martha Raddatz of ABC, Candy Crowley of CNN and Bob Schieffer of CBS were all given the task of moderating the debates. Posing questions, keeping track of the time, making sure neither candidate veers too far off topic couldn’t be too difficult, right? Wrong.
The moderators have received more criticism this election than in any previous year. Both parties have voiced disapproval during one debate or another regarding how a question was asked or why a response was cut off. Lehrer was criticized by viewers for being too passive, Raddatz by Republicans for being too lenient towards Biden, Crowley by media sources and both parties for fact-checking a point made by Romney, leaving only Schieffer with a positive review. Why has it become so difficult to do the job satisfactorily?
The answer has nothing to do with the competence levels of these men and woman. This was Lehrer’s 12th presidential debate, and the others shared comparable credentials; without the experience, clearly, they would not have been selected as moderators in the first place. Simply put, just as partisan politics have prevented Congress from moving forward, they have kept moderators from effectively carrying out the task of moderating debates.
The tone of election campaigns has slowly altered in recent years. Republicans and Democrats are more openly hostile towards each other and no longer only in advertisements. The New York Times’ headlines after debates have included words like sparring, jabs and, very frequently, offense and defense. The debate stage has become a battlefield, with the moderator’s feeble time reminders and requests to change the topic going unheard.
Despite the nightmarish experience these kinds of debates might be for moderators, audiences are drawn to the back-and-forth banter, the bickering, the heated exchanges. Viewers not only want to see a display of genuine emotion or relatable qualities from the candidates, but also wish to satisfy a much more basic human instinct: They want to see a fight. Just as children circle around a scuffle between classmates on the playground, American voters secretly yearn for some semblance of conflict, despite how childish it may be.
With the combination of party politics, the viewers’ craving for entertainment and the critics’ appeal for comprehensive coverage of important issues, a moderator has a wide variety of groups to please.
The presidential debate season is over, so any prospective moderators can rest easy knowing they will have four years to prepare for the impending doom of moderating the next batch of candidates. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that the nature of the debates will revert to the respectful, organized manner displayed just a few elections ago. To garner those positive reviews, the future Lehrers, Raddatzes and Crowleys of the world will just need to adapt to this newfangled, aggressive approach to politics.
Nina Golshan is a staff columnist. Email her at [email protected].
