icon bookmark-bicon bookmarkicon cameraicon checkicon chevron downicon chevron lefticon chevron righticon chevron upicon closeicon v-compressicon downloadicon editicon v-expandicon fbicon fileicon filtericon flag ruicon full chevron downicon full chevron lefticon full chevron righticon full chevron upicon gpicon insicon mailicon moveicon-musicicon mutedicon nomutedicon okicon v-pauseicon v-playicon searchicon shareicon sign inicon sign upicon stepbackicon stepforicon swipe downicon tagicon tagsicon tgicon trashicon twicon vkicon yticon wticon fm
9 Oct, 2020 13:42

Wayne Dupree: We’ve already seen two examples of debate-moderator bias, and there’s no reason to believe things will get better

Wayne Dupree: We’ve already seen two examples of debate-moderator bias, and there’s no reason to believe things will get better

It’s time to rethink the way moderators are selected for presidential debates. Left-leaning choices from the MSM who are immersed in the Washington DC bubble will never give Republicans a fair crack of the whip.

On the basis of what we have seen so far in the US presidential campaign, it is clear that the Commission on Presidential Debates has breathed too much swamp gas. The president should immediately cancel his participation in any future debates until changes to the format are made. In an ideal world, here’s how they should work…

Firstly, there should be two moderators: one from conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation or the Hoover Institution and one from liberal think tanks such as the Brookings Institution or the Center for American Progress.

The president will choose the conservative moderator and his contender will choose the liberal moderator.

​Both moderators will ask pre-set and previously confidential, neutrally worded questions to both contenders. After the questions are answered, time will be provided for open debate with short, uninterrupted statements. The time for answers and open debate will be stipulated, perhaps three minutes. Open debate rebuttal statements will be limited to one minute and during the primary answers and rebuttal statements, the opponent’s mic will be paused so no interruption is possible. No dog fighting will be permitted.

​It should be that easy, but the problem is that all the moderators are always chosen from those who live and work in the DC area and infrastructure. If we had a moderator from say Dallas, or Omaha, or Florida, they would not be in ‘DC mode.’

​But the swamp in DC controls the Commission for Presidential Debates. And, as long as they choose the moderator, and the moderator is from the DC area, they basically control what is asked. And the bias is profound.​

Moderator Susan Page, who handled the VP debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, was just a Chris Wallace with a smarter haircut and better voice.

And, while Page wasn’t as openly nasty as Wallace, every question to Harris seemed a set-up for a smirky- rehearsed reply and left Pence with no time to really discuss any issue. The entire night was a re-run of all the lies from CNN over the last four years.​

The greatest victim in the political landscape of America, circa 2020, is good, old-fashioned objectivity. The mainstream thrives on making every issue an emotional event so that they can make money and present only one side of an issue. They ensure that debates are pointless, while stoking the fires of hot-button topics with emotive triggers, ensuring that a discussion of the deeper issues is impossible.

​In a firefight, the most critical component of survival is composure. Maintaining one’s cognitive ability and powers of observation, all other things being equal, will largely decide who will win or lose.

Also on rt.com Trump-Biden ‘debate’ full of hoaxes & emotional manipulation shows the press has failed as guardians of the American Republic

Out-of-control liberals illustrate this reality all too well. Instead of objectively analyzing a public policy issue or a tragic news event, they instantly exploit the mob-mentality to ensure that a reasonable review and discussion is impossible. The MSM has amply demonstrated that they are in league together, that they are akin to a monopoly, and to my mind, should be subject to antitrust litigation.

​Only when these behemoths are broken up will there be any hope that a diversification of opinion is possible. Only when there’s a legion of editors and producers evaluating the news, rather than a CEO enforcing the ‘party line’ from the front office, will it be possible for some of them to return to good journalism and objectivity.

​Whether we like it or not, the so-called ‘fourth estate’ is as essential to good government as its three constitutionally established branches.

When that fourth branch has become hopelessly corrupt, as we are seeing today, then it is time to restore some balance and rob the CEOs of these propaganda outlets of their ability to shape public policy discussions with blatant falsehoods, selective coverage and news stories saturated with opinions.

​Steve Scully of C-SPAN is the next debate moderator, and, yes, he interned under Joe Biden while in college. Some claim Scully is a professional and a straight shooter ­– where have we heard that before; Robert Mueller perhaps? – but the apparent conflict of interest is appalling.

Come on, man, in a country where there are literally thousands of people capable of being moderator, why has someone who once worked for one of the debate participants been chosen? If that’s the case, shouldn’t President Trump get a moderator who won a season of The Apprentice?

The bottom line – and excuse me if I repeat myself – is that this will always be a problem as long as the moderators are chosen from the ranks of the ‘phake nooz’ media and they get to formulate the questions and to whom they are asked.​

Since the vast majority of the media are leftists, you'll always get a leftist moderator, who lobs softballs to Democrats and fires high, hard ones at Republicans. Some moderators will do a better job than others of camouflaging what they’re doing, but they’ll still be doing it.

The entire debate format needs a complete overhaul. In its present form, it is as worthless as a three-dollar bill as a tool to inform anyone on anything.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.