Lester Holt Told The First Big Lie (NBC anchor and moderator)

[HAPPY2BME]

Sam Husseini
27 Sep, 2016

Before the faceoff between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, many were pleading that Lester Holt, the NBC anchor and moderator Monday night, to be a "fact checker."

Any delusions in that regard should have been dashed right away as he perpetrated a root falsehood at the very start of the event.

Holt claimed that the event was "sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight's format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns."

While the CPD certainly controls much of the event, it's not a "nonpartisan" organization at all. It's about as far from nonpartisan as you can get. It's totally bipartisan. It's a creation of the Democratic and Republican parties designed to solidify their dominance over the public.

Its origins are in an agreement "Memorandum of Agreement on Presidential Candidate Joint Appearances" from 1985 signed by Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., then Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Paul G. Kirk Jr., then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The two would go on to head the CPD.

But that original agreement didn't even have the word "debates" in it. This Commission is the mechanism by which the Democratic and Republican parties came together to push aside the League of Women Voters, which had organized presidential debates before 1988. It was to make sure that the campaigns, not some independent entity, would decide on moderators, on formats -- and to critically exclude other participants unless both sides agreed. They simply wanted to ensure "televised joint appearances" -- which became emblematic of a pretense of democratic discourse.

Holt's fabrication -- he can't possibly be ignorant of this -- is really a root problem of our politics. All the lies and spin from Clinton and Trump largely manifest themselves because each side excuses them because "the other" is worse. That is, the very "bipartisan" structure of our elections is in large part responsible for the dynamics we're seeing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-husseini/lester-holt-told-the-firs_b_12221574.html

[Maj. Bill Martin]

We should take a lesson from the Brits, and Question Time.

Rather than searching for the nonexistent "unbiased" moderators, embrace the reality that you are never going to eliminate bias.  There should be two "moderators" for each debate, with each participant getting to appoint one of their own choosing.  They then alternate asking each candidate questions.

Under that format, each candidate will alternative between getting a "friendly" question from the moderator they chose, so they have an opportunity to state their positive vision, and a tough, "unfriendly" question from the other moderator.  And then let the candidates take notes up to the podium with them if they'd like.  Being President does not require memorization of minutia like it's a Jeopardy contest. 

[thackney]

We should take a lesson from the Brits, and Question Time.

Rather than searching for the nonexistent "unbiased" moderators, embrace the reality that you are never going to eliminate bias.  There should be two "moderators" for each debate, with each participant getting to appoint one of their own choosing.  They then alternate asking each candidate questions.

Under that format, each candidate will alternative between getting a "friendly" question from the moderator they chose, so they have an opportunity to state their positive vision, and a tough, "unfriendly" question from the other moderator.  And then let the candidates take notes up to the podium with them if they'd like.  Being President does not require memorization of minutia like it's a Jeopardy contest.

I like that format.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I like that format.

The Commission will never do it, because it decreases their power, and calls out their inability to find truly unbiased moderators, sometimes referred to as "unicorns".

But if a candidate insisted on that, it might get interesting.

[Jazzhead]

The problem isn't the format.   The problem is the Commission perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy that we have two choices, and two choices only.

Johnson/Weld qualify for the ballot in all fifty states.  Demand they be included in the next debate.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The problem isn't the format.   The problem is the Commission perpetuates the self-fulfilling prophecy that we have two choices, and two choices only.

Johnson/Weld qualify for the ballot in all fifty states.  Demand they be included in the next debate.

That depends on your perspective.  For me, the format for the debate virtually guarantees that one of the two candidates will be treated unfairly.  That's what I care about.  Your interests may be different.

In terms of the number of participants, the Presidential Debate Commission is a private organization and is perfectly free to set its own rules.  The two major parties also are private organizations, and are under no obligation to let other parties participate.  If the other parties don't like that, they are free to host their own debate.  They have no legal right to 'demand" inclusion in a debate arranged by a private corporation.