What's missing from the presidential debates: Questions from reporters

Here's a little-known fact I discovered while looking up other things: Since 1992, the fall debates between the presidential and vice presidential candidates have featured no questions from reporters, only anchorpeople and "uncommitted voters."

Since the '92 campaign, when two of the four debates featured panels of print and television journalists in addition to the moderator, the forums sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates have all been of the single-moderator format. Without exception that moderator has been a news anchor, not a reporter -- and usually it's been the PBS "NewsHour's" Jim Lehrer, who has moderated 8 of the past 11 presidential debates.

You've heard me go on about President Bush's reluctance to engage hard questions from the news media, but it seems President Clinton (whose hatred of the news media was richly documented in Howie Kurtz's book Spin Cycle) was no fan of the hard question, either. Because all moderators have to have the tacit approval of both parties, the people who ask hard questions have been effectively squeezed out with bipartisan consent.

Now, you say, what's wrong with that? You've got a journalist on stage, still, and the whole point of a debate is to sway uncommitted voters, so why not hear from them? Two problems come immediately to mind:

1. The moderator has to play the part of both impartial judge and hard-nosed prosecutor. That's hard to do, and it's probably why Lehrer gets the gig as often as he does ... because he errs on the impartial-judge side of things. That's his job. But let's say a Brit Hume were available (as he was for the 1988 Bentsen-Quayle debate) or Helen Thomas (1992, Bush-Clinton-Perot) to lob a couple of firecrackers on stage. Wouldn't that create a little more drama, make things a little more unsettling for the candidates? And isn't that why we don't see journalists in the debates anymore?

2. The place of the journalist has been taken by so-called "uncommitted voters." Chosen at random by Gallup from poll subjects who say they haven't decided, these people comprise most of the audience at those "town hall meetings" that were immortalized in the 1992 "wristwatch" debate (seen here) and have been a staple of debates ever since.

Well, of course you want ordinary voters' concerns in there, but as we have seen, they are no substitute for professional question-askers. As I argued a few days ago during the conventions: When non-journalists get to ask the questions, they rarely get to ask a follow-up. Helen Thomas recently observed in the HBO documentary about her that the follow-up is where you really get to nail your subject on his or her evasiveness. Just the other day Ted Koppel took down a wily Republican operative into a corner on NPR over the question of Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. Read the transcript and ask yourself if that ever would have happened in a town-hall setting. Indeed, when Neil Postman wrote his wonderfully prescient jeremiad Amusing Ourselves to Death in 1985, he singled out the town hall format as one that looked dramatic on TV but was antithetical to "discussion as we normally use the word." (Irony of ironies, he used a "Nightline" town hall meeting as his example.)

Also, in another concession to TV values, three of the four debates will take place around a table. I don't like that. I think putting the candidates in chairs pointed right at the audience, without a shield, or in any other way making it uncomfortable for them would draw out more tension than the kitchen-table design, which I will forever associate with that chummy "debate" between Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney from 2000.

And while we're walking down memory lane, let's enjoy a moment from that debate, shall we? Your moderator is Bernard Shaw.

MODERATOR: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq's president Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would, quote, "Take him out." Would you agree with such a deadly policy?

CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. ... We're in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to -- to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

MODERATOR: Senator.

LIEBERMAN: It would, of course, be a very serious situation if we had evidence, credible evidence, that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. I must say, I don't think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case. I think that's a matter of such critical national security importance that it ought to be left to the Commander in Chief, leaders of the military, Secretary of State to make that kind of decision without the heat of a political campaign. The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The Gulf War was a great victory. And incidentally, Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support President Bush and Secretary Cheney in that war. We're proud we did that. The war did not end with a total victory. Saddam Hussein remained there. As a result, we have had almost ten years now of instability. We have continued to operate almost all of this time military action to enforce a no-fly zone. We have been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors. We're doing everything we can to get the inspectors back in there. But in the end there's not going to be peace until he goes. And that's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act with Senator Trent Lott where I have kept in touch with the Iraqi opposition, broad base. We met with them earlier this year. We are supporting them in their efforts and will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days, get rid of a despot. We'll welcome you back into the family of nations where you belong.

Related: A nice documentary that Lehrer (naturally) made of the 1992 debates called "Debating Our Destiny." And if you missed the sequel this week, here's the website for "Debating Our Destiny II."

Comments

[jesus zimmerman]

i wonder what happened in '92 that brought on such a change? oh, nevermind.

[Marvin]

This is why McCain is so desperate for town hall meetings of course. Normal voters simply aren't that informed for one. Secondly, they won't have the background to know when a politician has contradicted prior statements.

These silly debate concessions are what allowed a light-weight like GWB to squeak his way through 2 elections.