Public Eye
July 18, 2007 2:50 PM

Immoderate Moderators?

(AP)
When you think of political debate moderators, you think of old school types like Jim Lehrer and, over the years, Edwin Newman or Sander Vanocur. These journalists could be relied upon to navigate discussions dispassionately and professionally – and occasionally keeping the peace.

Welcome to the 21st century, folks. According to the AFL-CIO, a certain MSNBC host and frequent George Bush critic is going to moderate an upcoming Democratic debate held by the union:
Keith Olbermann, whose biting, pull-no-punches commentaries on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” have been known to spike the blood pressure of their targets—ask Fox News’ belligerent right-winger Bill O’Reilly—will moderate the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago on Aug. 7.
The debate will consist of some questions posed by AFL-CIO members in an online contest as well as a number of questions from Olbermann himself.

As you’d expect when a partisan personality gets involved in a debate, it’s causing a stir in some media quarters. One critical view comes from Inside Cable News:
A year and a half ago MSNBC could have probably worked Olbermann in to moderate a debate without drawing too much fire. But not now. Not after Olbermann has firmly placed himself on the left side of the political spectrum with numerous Special Commnets/attacks at the Republican administration, and one aimed at the Democratic Congress for not having a spine to stand up to Bush on the Iraq War, I don’t see how anyone can watch Olbermann moderate a debate without thinking of his biases. MSNBC is taking a big risk here.
So is MSNBC really taking a big risk? At first blush, you’d think so. (I did.) But when you take a step backwards, let the concept breathe a tad and get over the This Isn’t The Way We’ve Done Things Before, you realize it’s different, yeah, and a tad unorthodox … but it could be an interesting change of pace.

I’m not an Olbermaniac, mind you, but in today’s polarized media landscape, this concept could generate a little more heat and light than the traditional format. Most importantly, the AFL-CIO forum isn’t coming at the cost of a regular debate. It’s not as if this is the only opportunity we have to find out more about the candidates – there have been more than a handful of Republican and Democratic debates and it’s only July, with a pair on CNN scheduled before the AFL-CIO event.

Olbermann – and his political Moriarty, Bill O’Reilly – engages with a sizable constituency of Americans who have their own concerns, priorities and partisan worldviews. A chance for each of them to address the candidates would speak to their viewers in a way that the unbiased professorial approach doesn’t. I think each of them should be encouraged to moderate a debate of the candidates they sympathize with. (Wishful thinking, sure, but a chance for them to challenge the other side would be Must See TV, thought though it would never happen in today’s carefully choreographed campaign environment, where the Democrats won’t even participate in a Fox News Channel debate.)

So have at it, Keith. Consider it for a moment, Bill. (Or if Bill passes, how about Rush?) The more information we have about the men who want to run America -- regardless of who pokes and prods them – the better. After all, knowledge is power.
Tags:
Keith Olbermann ,
Bill O'Reilly ,
AFL-CIO ,
MSNBC
Topics:
4th Estate Debate
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment
by lochukung July 19, 2007 8:29 PM EDT
If the power of the socalled left-wing-media-bias had been so potent as to influence the hearts and minds of the average American, George Bush would not have been re-elected and we would not be talking about this stupid Iraq war now.
Right-wing media mouthpiece such as Fox (by extension Murdoch) undoubtedly was an accessory to perpetuating what GW Bush wanted to sell to the stunted collective American psyche after 9-11--his sinister agenda to bring down Saddam Hussein under the banner of WMD.
Americans are paying a heavy price by choosing this chimera in disguise of a president. No matter how much this presidential circus spins and denies, this invasion was a lost cause from day one.
We need more Keith Olbermann who is ready, willing and able to tell the truth. Let's stop calling ourselves the greatest country on earth by engaging in deceitful and immoral acts. This is exactly our megalomania that has brought us into this mess in the first place. I have no doubt Keith Olbermann will take his pull-no-punches approach towards a Democratic President should he or she embark on similar faux pas. it's not about partisan politics, it's about conscience in the highest order.
Reply to this comment
by wirro-2009 July 19, 2007 4:46 PM EDT
I have no trouble with Olbermann moderating a Democratic debate, just like I have no trouble with O'Reilly doing a Republican event. I would even have no trouble with their switching off and moderating events of the opposition. They are both commentators, not journalists and perhaps could elicit some interesting responses. Is there any particular reason that politicians have to respond only to favorable questions. Might not seeing how they handle hostile questions be informative?

I'm not even sure I would oppose either doing a debate with candidates of both parties, though the appearance of favor in the question selection might overwhelm the candidates answers.

Journalists (including Lehrer) have done such a miserable job with their milquetoast questions and follow-ups that a change could only help.
Reply to this comment
by rray52 July 19, 2007 4:25 PM EDT
Olbermann's shtick is stale, a one trick pony. Use Rosie instead she%u2019s more creative.
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 July 19, 2007 3:43 PM EDT
This can be looked upon with an equal sense of duality (of man) in that Limbaugh has consistently attacked everything Liberal for over 20 years. And, it was Rush Limbaugh that invented the phrase %u201CLiberal Media Bias%u201D.

Now, with the emergence of Keith Olbermann and his voice of Conservative dissent one could take either side as to who the nemesis and/or the truth detector would be.

It%u2019s elementary.
Reply to this comment
by bmidji July 19, 2007 2:49 PM EDT
Matt, describing Rush as Keith's Moriarty is to make Keith into Sherlock Holmes. That literary metaphor doesn't exactly sing.

Tim G.
Reply to this comment
by mattcat25 July 19, 2007 12:42 PM EDT
To quote my friend Rush Limbaugh, %u201Cif a Conservative should leave a bag of *** lying around, you can bet a Liberal will step in it%u201D. Keith Olbermann has managed to create a gush of attention from the Right Wing Media (and bootlickers) with his cutting edge editorial comments and reporting of the many detrimental actions taken by the Bush/Cheney Administration and the Republican Cabal on America. I love to watch the right wing clamor and attempt to attack Olbermann personally instead of responding prudently to his findings. I guess Keith Olbermann is the bag of *** the right wing can%u2019t keep their boots out of!
Reply to this comment
by exile8 July 19, 2007 4:07 AM EDT
Olbermann is a centrist. It's the rest of you Bush bootlickers -- like the people who write the posts here -- whose biases should worry us.

You spend six years telling us about the wisdom of the Great Cowboy King...and now you condemn one of the few who saw through it as "biased."

No wonder America hates you. No wonder your profession is dying. No wonder you have no credibility.
Reply to this comment
by ronmwanga July 19, 2007 2:58 AM EDT
One word: Ratings. Debates this early on -- and without Al Sharpton supplying comic relief -- are not ratings getters. Prestige notwithstanding, the cablers are going to do what they can to spice things up. That, added to the largeness of the field should conspire to create a largely unedifying evening.
Reply to this comment
by one_american July 18, 2007 7:04 PM EDT
Keith Olbermann is the poster child for moonbats.

But I don't mind if he moderates (oh, the irony) the Democrat discussion...

...just don't call it a "debate".

An "echo chamber" would be more accurate.
Reply to this comment
by memekiller July 18, 2007 7:02 PM EDT
Well, not participating in the FOX debate had nothing to do with careful choreography. It was about standing up to a partisan outlet. The equivelant would be to have Michael Moore moderate the GOP debate. Then having analysis of the debate done by conservative pollster Frank Luntz. In Washington, where roundtables continue to skew right and don't include unapologetic Bush critics, this might make sense. But the types of folks who read blogs just boggle over how things got so ***-eyed that this sort of thing is even considered reasonable.
Reply to this comment

Exclusive Webshow

Grammy winner Shakira on her music career, philanthropy and being sexy. Watch Now

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye

  • MOST POPULAR