When it comes to political debates in the post Lincoln-Douglas era, there are some obvious trends and givens:
* There are multiple, overlapping agendas at play. For candidates–as well as moderators.
* Each presidential candidate needs to connect with viewers, starting with activist, primary constituencies who always require the reddest-meat sound bites. Nominal answers to actual moderator questions typically precede a pivot to an agenda answer, which may or may not have anything to do with the question.
* Don’t like a question? A favorite candidate ploy is to turn the question on the questioner and blanketly blame the media for its “gotcha” gestalt. Almost always works.
*Whatever else these debates are–from credibility litmus tests to informative give-and-take exercises–they are also show business vehicles. Ratings–and attendant ad revenues–matter mightily. Moderators are not just First Amendment enablers and truth seekers, they’re also network performers.
As we’ve seen on cable TV’s political talk shows, conflict sells. From Fox to CNBC. Save reasoned discussion for C-SPAN and PBS.
* If candidates can’t handle Megyn Kelly or John Harwood, perhaps they’re not ready for prime time. Let alone Vlad Putin, Xi Jinping or Raul Castro. I think Chris Christie would agree.
* Frankly, if Donald Trump and Ben Carson decided to double down and say, “We’re only going to talk to Sean Hannity: Deal with it,” who would bet against them getting their way? The process–with this cycle’s infotainment inclusion of Trump–has devolved that much.
* Context matters. I watched an NBC interview earlier this week with Lester Holt sitting down with President Barack Obama. Among Holt’s areas of inquiry: America’s decision to send a small team of commandos into Syria as part of the broader war against ISIS. This, of course, was in the aftermath of the president’s repeated rejections of “boots on the ground” deployment. Holt’s operative question was ultimately phrased as: “So, did you go back on your word?”
Now on a politically-dynamic and-optic stage in front of a live audience and record-setting millions at home, such a question might be perceived as “gotcha.” Comes with the territory. But it’s actually an eminently fair–and likely expected–question to ask in an interview. In fact, to not ask it is to fall shy of a journalistic standard that holds ultimate decision-makers accountable for their actions and motives.
* Is it journalism or show business? Frankly, I have a problem with any serious presidential debate that begins with asking candidates what their greatest weakness is, carving out time for a fantasy football question and then never getting around to the debt ceiling. That only invites the sort of over-the-top, blame-the-media outbursts that resulted.
Candidly, we all deserve better.