Debate Moderator Bias

[UPDATE 11/9, 6:45pm: See my latest comment, while I'm still offended at the Russert torpedoing of Dennis Kucinich, the timer situation was far more fair in the earlier rounds than in the later ones that I noticed. And the candidates in the later rounds who were more forcefully cut off when time expired were the same ones who went the most over in the earliest rounds. Also, the application of the on-screen timer kind of went out of kilter after a bit of an interruption in the middle during the Clinton "I support the governor in what he's doing, but I don't agree with it" stuff, earlier on it was much closer to fair. --Liam]

I finally got around to watching the Democratic debate I had TiVo'd last week, and I'm really quite offended at the bias shown by the moderators, especially Tim Russert.

It's subtle, but it's clear that the whole event was aimed at the big three candidates instead of letting each candidate have an unbiased shot at getting their message out.

I'm sure there were a lot more examples, but let me just give a few of the more glaring ones I spotted.

The worst was Russert's question to Dennis Kucinich about UFOs. What, exactly, did that have to do with anything? It was a question designed and intended from the start to feature Kucinich's reputation as a whack-job candidate... and he may well be that. Nevertheless, his policy stances should be what drives people to decide how seriously to take him.

And by the way, that one goes further. Kucinich answered honestly and tried to deflect it by turning it into a joke, which it really was, and Russert (who let a lot of more serious and substantive stuff stand) decided to go for the jugular. Completely inappropriate.

Another subtle but clear problem was the "speed round" questions, in which candidates are given 30 seconds to give their answers. These things should be scrapped. 30 seconds aren't enough time to give a proper answer to most questions as was clear when candidate after candidate went over, not with puffery or overly expansive answers, but while trying to give a complete answer to a complex question. If you want to have "speed round" questions, make sure they're questions that can reasonably be answered in 30 seconds.

But the biggest reason why these 30 second time limit questions are clearly a source of bias is in the timing. Watch the clock closely. When the question is asked of the fringe candidates, that timer starts instantly when the question is done being asked. When the question is asked of one of the candidates considered more "main stream", the candidate often was speaking for four or five seconds before the timer popped up on screen and started ticking down from 30.

And watch who was most forcefully interrupted when their 30 seconds ran out, too. When it was a main stream candidate, the moderators waited until they were just about done speaking and then, in their most obsequious and apologetic of voices, said that they were going to have to be more strict with future answers. But when it was one of the fringe candidates, the second that clock hit zero there were audible interruptions.

Now, to all of this you could argue that there have already been a lot of debates and a lot of water under the bridge. You could point out that the first primaries are about two months away and that perhaps it's reasonable to start hearing more from the candidates who have a real chance of winning the nomination.

And arguably you'd be right, although it'd be a fine line to walk, because while that might be appropriate in this late debate, if they'd done it during the earlier ones they would have created an unfair and non-level playing field in the early parts of the process.

But still, in my view it should be the party who decides which candidates are worthy of taking part in the debate and the moderators' job to see that each person on that stage gets a fair and balanced set of questions and time to answer them.

In the end, it's supposed to be us, the citizens, who decide which candidates will represent us in the election and which nominee will become our next President. It should not be up to the news media to make that choice for us (and while I know it's idealistic to believe it won't happen, at least it should be done with more artistry than this ham-handed display of favoritism).

Liam.