Why do debate panels always have to be composed of journalists, anyway? Why not a panel composed of a business leader, a retired military officer, a physician, a law enforcement officer, and then maybe throw in a journalist just for old time’s sake? The concerns of journalists hardly outrank those of other Americans.
Because, somewhere along the way, networks and political parties decided that journalists have some unique insight into politics and the issues of the day???
That because journalists cover the news and politics for a living, that somehow we’re supposed to revere their opinions????
Just my 2 cents as to why journalists, and liberal ones at that, are moderators.
How about a Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin type as a moderator? That might cause some interesting debate moments.
That is a very good suggestion for rectifying the blatant hypocrisy, there are many people in communities with integrity and those are who should moderating.
Fundamentally, the position of “objective journalist” is ideally suited to the demagogue. And when it comes to demagogues, birds of a feather flock together - a politician who will say anything and flatter anyone to get elected will get along just fine, thank you, with a journalist who will say anything and flatter anyone to get money, prestige, and political influence.But, the question is not why “debate panels” should consist of journalists, but why debates should be moderated with anything other than a chess clock to control the microphone?
If the only consideration were to publicize the candidates’ positions on what issues are important and what should be done about them, there would be no need of a moderator to presume to define the issues at all. George Stephanopolis’ infamous injection of birth control as an issue among a group of candidates none of whom had the slightest interest in debating that issue was entirely gratuitous. It should not be a possibility in the future.