"Mr. Holt, the anchor of the 'NBC Nightly News,' will moderate the first debate on Sept. 26; Ms. Raddatz of ABC and Mr. Cooper of CNN will moderate the town hall debate on Oct. 9; and Mr. Wallace of Fox News will handle the final debate on Oct. 19. All are first-time presidential debate moderators."
The NYT reports.
Looks like they took one from each network... except CBS. But: " the CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano will moderate the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 4."
२ सप्टेंबर, २०१६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७० टिप्पण्या:
Three out of four are demonstrably Liberal Leftists.
Republicans wuss out again.
I'm kind of curious to know how much the candidates can deadlift.
That's an interesting opening offer. Let's see what Trump counter-offers.
All of them are screaming leftists. Trump can handle them and turn it to his advantage. Still totally bogus.
Was Jane Fonda unavailable?
There is a reason we people on the Right call the GOP the Stupid Party.
Fox has completely turned against Trump as well. The only 'fair' reporting that happens is by accident, and when it occurs it is glaring. Amazing that Trump will win despite this 'no holds barred' partisan reporting.
@Wilbur, the networks regard Hanoi Jane as too far to the right.
Assuming that the debate moderated by Martha Raddatz will focus on foreign policy, it could be brutal for Trump. He better hope Gary Johnson qualifies to be included.
Election theater for the masses.
Three out of four are demonstrably Liberal Leftists.
And Chris Wallace demonstrably hates Trump.
Althouse should be moderating one of these. Seriously.
Notably absent: George Snuffleupagus; Megyn Kelly
Martha Raddatz wears her liberal elitism on her sleeve.
Trump will set the debates up as a two on one. I don't think he is going to let anybody pretend they are neutral.
Blogger Bob Boyd said...
Althouse should be moderating one of these. Seriously.
I'd go for that. The professor would be great.
There are a lot of people that would be better than the news folks.
Will Martha Raddatz's head be unshrunk by then?
At least 3 out of 4 of those people are going to do everything in their power to make Trump look appear as an uninformed oafish bully loudmouth and portray Hillary as a smart and caring victim. Whether they succeed or not largely depends on Trump's performance. Sadly it almost doesn't matter what's actually said. What matters will be how it's said. These debates will be a grotesquerie.
This is a terrible line up for Trump.
I guess candy Crowley wasn't available?
Brian Lamb of C-SPAN should moderate them all.
It would not surprise me in the least if Hillary were given the questions ahead of the debate.
Raddatz: "So Mr. Trump, can you name the Russian defense minister's third wife's son?
Holt: "Mrs. Clinton, are happy now the FBI director has cleared you of any wrong doing?"
Dooper: "Mr. Trump, it's demonstrable that you hate women, blacks, gays, and Hispanics. Can you tell us if you have been to therapy to overcome this incredible hatred?"
Wallace: "Mrs. Clinton, are you enjoying life as grandmother?"
I have never been able to understand why the debates need to be moderated, or why a conservative woudl agree to such.
I say: put a clock on the front of the podium of each of the candiates. When that candidate is talking the clock runs. When their clock runs out, their mic is cut.
Then just let them ask each other questions and have a conversation.
This notion that you need moderators is pure nonseense.
time to start whining proper and playing the refs...stat!
That's a good draw for the rope-a-dope. Lester Holt will try to use his personal history to hang up Trump on immigration. The town hall questions will likely be rigged. But Chris Wallace last, that will be an opportunity.
Has Trump agreed to this?
I've always thought that the same questions should be posed to each candidate and asked in the same form. It is obvious that the 'moderators' want to drive and dominate the debate, not just moderate it.
Monty Python's Communist Quiz show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNQns0jhy4k
Damn, I miss Monty Python!
No moderator needed- candidates should just ask each other questions.
Many people today are anti-white male because white males supposedly run the country due to their white privilege yet there is only one white male on this list and he is arguably left of center and he is also Jewish [so he is not the prototypical evil white male].
I'd like to echo Quayle and AJ Lynch. Just let them each give opening (and maybe closing) statements, and then let them converse, ask and respond to questions from each other. The current format is like a bad reality show mixed with a trivia quiz show with a heavily biased host. It's not really informative, it's more about one-upping and scoring points.
I can imagine Raddatz asking Trump if he endorses the Obama doctorine.
Well Dan Rather sort of soiled the bed over at CBS some time ago.
"The current format is like a bad reality show mixed with a trivia quiz show with a heavily biased host." Just the way the MSM like it. Politics as soap opera with an agenda. Not clear why the GOP goes along. Of course, Trump has experience with bad reality shows, so he may be able to turn it to his advantage. But he'd be better off in an actual, unmoderated debate.
Within the current format, I nominate not ignorant lefty "journalists," but people who actually know something and may elicit semi-meaningful responses -- Bill Galston, Walter Russell Mead, John McWhorter, and for sheer cruel neutrality, Ann Althouse.
African-American, asian, gay, women, check, check, check, check.
"Moderating" is not the right word.
I'm disappointed the hathetic George Stuffingenvelopes wasn't included.
There should be no moderators. Each candidate should be in a sound proof booth and each take turns talking (like 5 minutes) and when your time is up, your mick is cut and it is the other persons turn. At the end of an hour, turn out the house lights...
Semi-off-topic
Razib Khan, the genetics blogger, the go-to journalist for new developments in population genetics, who has long experience with this - on the closing of the American Mind (Alan Bloom was right of course, but as a comment there says, he was just a bit of a prophet.)
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-ending-of-the-liberal-interregnum/
The grim part is his own comment below - Razib Khan is an academic, on the science side, though in a controversial area. In decades past he would have been a regular columnist in Scientific American. Looks like he is personally under pressure. Me, I deal with industry and regulation, so I have been deeply pessimistic for a long time. But this is worse in its own way.
"...some of my geneticist friends are appalled that i speak openly about some things. some of them are admiring of my boldness. none of them will speak in public though, whatever they may say in private (except for the ones who will excoriate me now and then).
if you had asked me in 2005 if we’d be here in 2016, i’d have been skeptical, and sad. but that’s where we are. it’s getting worse, not better :-( and it’s not about tenure or money. it’s about social sanction and approval. so two sad conclusions:
1) truth can only move in hidden channels now if it conflicts with power. no one gives a shit if you appeal to truth, they know that it is not intrinsic value except in the serve of status and power. i admire heterodox academy, but part of me wonders if they’d be better served by being stealth and just creating a secret society that doesn’t put the academy on notice that some people know that reality is different from the official narratives.
2) the post-modernists are right to a first approximation, everything is power. so “we” have to capture and crush; it’s only victory or defeat. the odds are irrelevant. i put we in quotes because it doesn’t matter who you are, the game is on, whether you think you are a player or not.
open data and crowd-sourcing means that a whole ecosystem of knowledge can emerge that doesn’t need to be nakedly exposed and put peoples’ livelihoods and reputations at risk from the kommissars.
some of my friends have argued this for a long time and i resisted because i’m an liberal in the old sense. but reality is reality, and the fact is that no one wants the truth, and they’ll destroy you to deny it."
It has to be this way. There's no way they could chance letting Hillary go out there all by herself.
With three weeks to go does anyone not already know the verdict on the debate performances? Regardless of what actually happens here are the highlights:
Hillary: impressive, energetic, command, facts, called out Trump, truth, leadership, presidential.
Trump: weak, hate, fact check, terrifying, wrong, called out, takedown, bigoted.
The appropriate response from the Trump team would be a big eff you.
Buwaya, perhaps you could translate Mr. Khan's assertions.
The appropriate response from the Trump team would be a big eff you.
Hah! Nothing would please Hillary more than Trump refusing to debate. She has a LOT more issues to duck than he does.
@mockturtle
Trump would get more, and better, publicity by refusing.
No, Chuck, he'll score points on the moderators, too.
In the tradition of these debates, Hillary has already won. If she is literally able to stand up and to speak, she will be hailed as a strong presenter. Any holes will be plugged by the media so all that she will be required to do is to perform the equivalent of singing "Mary had a little lamb" and it will be hailed as the "I have a dream" speech. In other words; she has no downside. Given that, the more slanted the moderators can be made out, the more excuses Trump has for a sub-par performance.
Everyone knows the deck is going to be stacked, so how does Trump win?
I would advise him to have a "bunker" mentality. Unless he has a well-prepared answer to a question - ignore it and deliver a canned response on a topic he is prepared to speak on. Can he "get away with" such behavior? In this context, yes. Since everyone knows that winning the debate in traditional terms is impossible, he can set the show up anyway he wants. If he then performs well, he is the winner.
So that makes these moderators ideal.
"And Chris Wallace demonstrably hates Trump."
Have to say, I don't see that.
All registered democrats and known Hillary supporters.
Yeah - that's fair.
Hugh Hewitt should be a moderator. Why are democrat hacks so afraid of intellectual and ideological diversity? Why does corrupt NBC get to call the shots?
I thought it was obvious -
That like the Press, the academic world is so tightly controlled in their policing of speech and participation that some things simply can't be said or done, and there is now a system in place to suppress them.
In Mr. Khans case, this has happened in the field of population genetics.
In a general case, across many scientific fields, such a suppression is in place on such matters as climate, pollution, and pretty much anything with regulatory or security implications.
The corruption of the debate arrangements as we see here, or the corruption of the New York Times, or of scientific research as Mr. Khan notes, or of the suppression of inconvenient industries, are just aspects of the "closing of the American mind" as Alan Bloom put it, the change in the purpose of everything, from that of fair play, increasing knowledge or technology or even of increasing prosperity, to the one single purpose of obtaining or retaining political power, which trumps everything else. There no longer is any other value.
I doubt Trump cares. He knows he is toast. He is getting ready to set up his media empire after his loss to a criminal and a liar.
Blogger Original Mike said...
"And Chris Wallace demonstrably hates Trump."
Have to say, I don't see that.
Mike Wallace's son has had lots of practice in squelching his liberal roots on Fox. He may even believe there's a valuable role in trying to keep Democrats honest.
"And Chris Wallace demonstrably hates Trump."
Have to say, I don't see that.
Then you must not watch Fox News much.
"Hugh Hewitt should be a moderator."
Maybe. Limbaugh and Althouse would be quite good actually. More interesting probably.
If its influential journalists/pundits that are wanted, Limbaugh would be tops, as he has the biggest personal audience.
Glen Reynolds (possibly) and Milo Yiannopoulos (certainly) would be very interesting and would keep the whole thing lively. Yiannopoulos would be a spectacle in himself.
Fritz said...
He may even believe there's a valuable role in trying to keep Democrats honest.
9/2/16, 11:53 AM
"keep the Democrats honest", LOL. Might as well say "keep the mob honest". Same difference, though of the two, the mob has a better track record of keeping their promises.
Wallace and several other Fox 'journalists' are contemptuous of Trump and don't try to hide it. Not because they are liberal but because they are establishment GOP.
I really do not understand why Republicans agree to allow debates to be moderated by all Democrats. Wallace is also a Democrat, just because he works at FOX does not mean he is a Republican.
The Stupid Party does it again! Who made the rule that the moderators must be journalists, lefty or otherwise?
Trump is foolish to allow himself to fall into an establishment setup. In addition to being biased, journalist are often ignorant.
"Then you must not watch Fox News much."
Every day. Bret Baier' program every night and Chris Wallace's show virtually every Sunday.
This is the gauntlet all Republicans have to run. Life is not fair.
Time to put on your Reagan Big Boy pants, Mr. Trump and convince us that you will be less of a disaster than Hillary!
It should not be tough. She's an avaricious, contemptuous elitist with a history of criminal behavior, bad judgment, pathological lying and defending a husband who is a serial sexual assaulter.
Can anyone argue otherwise about the dowager of the Clinton Crime Family?
Maybe David Duke or Roger Stone? Cher or Gotta Pee Little Lena?
Limbaugh?
Tsk tsk tsk, not a single openly transgender moderator! None of the moderators are illegal immigrants--excuse me, undocumented migrants, either.
We should boycott. (Or is that girlcott...xircott?)
This plays into Trump's system-is-rigged storyline.
Trump should reject. It's not worth the risk.
I doubt he cares because it will make a great excuse after he fails.
The only surprise to me is that Gwen Ifill is not participating as a moderator.
Apparently Wallace is a Democrat and I thought he was a Neocon. OTOH, what's the difference?
Lester Holt is a Christian and I would say he's the most objective and fair of the bunch, even though he's on NBC.
He won't show up.
chris wallace was one according to andrea mitchell's memoir, thought reagan had too easy a ride from the press corps, seriously,
Trump should set up his own debate series, invite Johnson and Stein, use moderators Milo Yiannopoulos, Scott Adams and Sharyl Attkisson (for three completely different standpoints on the election), make it available for both broadcast and streaming, and run it at the same time as the Debate Commission’s Demopalooza. Hmmm, which would most people watch?
I would like George Soros and the Koch brothers to moderate a presidential debate.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा