Eric, the only consolation with the debate being on Fox News, and I admit, it is wee, is that Chris Wallace is the moderator. When he's one-on-one with Trump he turns into a version of his father — and I mean that in the most positive sense of the sentiment. Other than clips which show him challenging Republicans or other Fox anchors, I don't watch him otherwise on the network to form any further opinion, however. But he is the sole returnee moderator from the 2016 debates.
I wonder if Trump wouldn't have participated had Fox not been in the mix; although he likely had to relent to no one more egregious than Wallace as that's probably the only Fox personality the Biden Team would even consider. But, yah, they really, 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 do not deserve the honor.
Just looked at the other two debate details — all single moderator? The second one from C-SPAN..?!? I guess Trump wouldn't agree to PBS. But he ok'd NBC News, his arch enemy, and it's moderated by MSNBC regular, Kristen Welker, of all people. I actually have liked Kristen's field reporting in the past and wondered why when her 2016 "Road Warrior" compatriots, Katy Tur, Kasie Hunt and Hallie Jackson, all have since gotten regular anchor spots, Welker hasn't. But then I saw her fill in a few weeks ago for ... was it Chris Hayes? I was stunned with how unfairly unrelenting she was with a guest, with sort of a conservative Devil's Advocate undertone, to the point of my thinking, "Give it a rest, Kristen — you're on MSNBC, for heaven's sake!" So maybe that answers my question about her.
But, really, these debates should all be moderated by at least two people, like the 2nd one of 2016 with Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. Two different networks, which makes things a little more interesting, and a little more fair.
I agree that a Fox host is a terrible choice for the first debate but the real problem for me is that debates are ridiculous. They have very little to do with the skills needed to be an effective president. When a presidents are doing critical negotiations they aren’t given time limits for every time they speak. If a candidate tries to give substantive answers to questions the media disses them for being boring. All they want is a gotcha moment to frame their horse race reporting and gin up excitement. It’s about performance art, not governing ability. Why did the media decide that Reagan’s age and mental fitness was suddenly off the table when he gave a snappy, prepared answer to a question about it? The fact that he could recite a line told us nothing about his overall mental acuity but suddenly the media took that important issue off the table.
As I have posted before during the 2016 primaries Rachel Maddow hosted back to back sit down interviews with the Democratic candidates. She asked them substantive questions, including questions about the major criticisms each candidate faced and gave them as much time as they needed to answer. I think she had alsoo taken questions from the audience in advance. I learned more about the candidates from that show than I did from the debates because it was not an adversarial format but it was not without tough, challenging questions.
These are not debates by any definition that I am aware of, and as Trump does not have any stated 2020 policies or goals (the RNC didn’t even release a platform!), it is not like the candidates can debate how to achieve any goals.
This isn’t even Kabuki theater, this is more like battle ants. I don’t get it at all.
Fox News is not news. That's the irony. If that's the route the commission wants to take, why not award SNL Weekend Update to host the debate? At least it would be funny.
The only thing that might keep Wallace honest during the debate is what I feel is true that he's put himself on a trajectory to get his father's old job at 60 Minutes. I believe that's what he wants. That being the case, being seen as fair in the eyes of the public and potential employers is in his mind. I honestly think that Joe Biden, in his quiet way, should push back against Wallace about what his network does. Don't be mean about it, just as in a calm voice if Wallace thinks the discourse on Fox News is helpful to Americans. Knock Wallace off his perch a bit.
On the one hand, Wallace often has distinguished himself. On the other hand, he also has done what Boehlert says, and it goes back to the problem I have mentioned: Those on Fux Noise should be ostracized, not accepted. If you recall the first episode of the TV series of The Paper Chase, where John Houseman's Kingfield "shrouds" a student, is pretty much what should be done.
Eric, the only consolation with the debate being on Fox News, and I admit, it is wee, is that Chris Wallace is the moderator. When he's one-on-one with Trump he turns into a version of his father — and I mean that in the most positive sense of the sentiment. Other than clips which show him challenging Republicans or other Fox anchors, I don't watch him otherwise on the network to form any further opinion, however. But he is the sole returnee moderator from the 2016 debates.
I wonder if Trump wouldn't have participated had Fox not been in the mix; although he likely had to relent to no one more egregious than Wallace as that's probably the only Fox personality the Biden Team would even consider. But, yah, they really, 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 do not deserve the honor.
Just looked at the other two debate details — all single moderator? The second one from C-SPAN..?!? I guess Trump wouldn't agree to PBS. But he ok'd NBC News, his arch enemy, and it's moderated by MSNBC regular, Kristen Welker, of all people. I actually have liked Kristen's field reporting in the past and wondered why when her 2016 "Road Warrior" compatriots, Katy Tur, Kasie Hunt and Hallie Jackson, all have since gotten regular anchor spots, Welker hasn't. But then I saw her fill in a few weeks ago for ... was it Chris Hayes? I was stunned with how unfairly unrelenting she was with a guest, with sort of a conservative Devil's Advocate undertone, to the point of my thinking, "Give it a rest, Kristen — you're on MSNBC, for heaven's sake!" So maybe that answers my question about her.
But, really, these debates should all be moderated by at least two people, like the 2nd one of 2016 with Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz. Two different networks, which makes things a little more interesting, and a little more fair.
trump hasn't debated anyone yet and there's virtually no chance he will this time. He lies, intimidates & blusters.
Yeah... I'm waiting for the crisis created that gets him off the hook.
Unless you mean by "debate" that he shows up but does all the things you've mentioned.
I agree that a Fox host is a terrible choice for the first debate but the real problem for me is that debates are ridiculous. They have very little to do with the skills needed to be an effective president. When a presidents are doing critical negotiations they aren’t given time limits for every time they speak. If a candidate tries to give substantive answers to questions the media disses them for being boring. All they want is a gotcha moment to frame their horse race reporting and gin up excitement. It’s about performance art, not governing ability. Why did the media decide that Reagan’s age and mental fitness was suddenly off the table when he gave a snappy, prepared answer to a question about it? The fact that he could recite a line told us nothing about his overall mental acuity but suddenly the media took that important issue off the table.
As I have posted before during the 2016 primaries Rachel Maddow hosted back to back sit down interviews with the Democratic candidates. She asked them substantive questions, including questions about the major criticisms each candidate faced and gave them as much time as they needed to answer. I think she had alsoo taken questions from the audience in advance. I learned more about the candidates from that show than I did from the debates because it was not an adversarial format but it was not without tough, challenging questions.
Overall, I really dislike the current “debate” format. It’s needlessly restrictive
These are not debates by any definition that I am aware of, and as Trump does not have any stated 2020 policies or goals (the RNC didn’t even release a platform!), it is not like the candidates can debate how to achieve any goals.
This isn’t even Kabuki theater, this is more like battle ants. I don’t get it at all.
Fox News is not news. That's the irony. If that's the route the commission wants to take, why not award SNL Weekend Update to host the debate? At least it would be funny.
the commission, like so many other DC institutions, has rolled over re: Fox
The only thing that might keep Wallace honest during the debate is what I feel is true that he's put himself on a trajectory to get his father's old job at 60 Minutes. I believe that's what he wants. That being the case, being seen as fair in the eyes of the public and potential employers is in his mind. I honestly think that Joe Biden, in his quiet way, should push back against Wallace about what his network does. Don't be mean about it, just as in a calm voice if Wallace thinks the discourse on Fox News is helpful to Americans. Knock Wallace off his perch a bit.
Would be great if Biden did that
Fake news hates Trump cuz they’re fake. That’s why u would like fake cnn to do it
On the one hand, Wallace often has distinguished himself. On the other hand, he also has done what Boehlert says, and it goes back to the problem I have mentioned: Those on Fux Noise should be ostracized, not accepted. If you recall the first episode of the TV series of The Paper Chase, where John Houseman's Kingfield "shrouds" a student, is pretty much what should be done.
Dems are very bad at working the refs. they’re convinced the DC press is one their side.’ Big mistake