Ever since she performed poorly at the Commander In Chief Forum shown on NBC, Hillary Clinton's team has been "preparing the ground" for tonight's first presidential debate. First we had a massive onslaught against Matt Lauer because he actually asked Hillary some tough questions and let an audience member do the same thing. "Outrageous!" screamed team Hillary and her media supporters. Even though Lauer asked tough questions to Trump as well, he was said to have gone soft on Trump and hard on Hillary. Of course, anyone who actually watched that forum know that the charge was not true, but when did the truth ever limit Hillary Clinton? After lambasting Lauer, her team next went after Jimmy Fallon. The host of the Tonight Show had Trump as a guest and treated him like any other guest. "Outrageous!" screamed team Hillary yet again. Fallon was supposed to criticize Trump and stop his "lies" or so the Hillaryites would have it. After that ran its course, Hillary and her people took to criticizing Lester Holt in advance. He needs to "fact check" Trump, or so we were told. If Hillary tells one of her usual lies, Holt can let her go, but if Trump tells a lie, Holt has to pounce. Team Hillary made it clear to Holt that his future in broadcasting depends on that. Some on her team in the media even put out lists of potential lies that Holt should not accept.
Well now we have gotten to the debate. We will see if Holt accepts his role as a member of the Hillary defense squad or if he will do his best to be impartial. The point of a presidential debate is not to see one candidate or the other debate the moderator. Rather, it is to see the two candidates debate each other. Hopefully, Holt understands that and will hold back. There is a time when one can fact check, but it deals only with facts. For example, we remember the time president Obama talked about visiting all 57 states. That was a factual mistake and it would be fine for the moderator to ask, "did you mean 50 states?" On the other hand, if Hillary were to say that she has always told the truth, it is not up to Holt to correct the record and say, "no, you are a known liar." That is more a conclusion than just a fact. If we look at the statement from the Lauer forum that drew the most criticism, Trump saying that he was against the war in Iraq before it began, that too is not a fact that should require the moderator to jump in. If Hillary wants to question that statement, she should and may do so. It is not Holt's job to jump in. Trump may have voiced luke warm support for that war a few months before it began, but it doesn't make his statement untrue. It becomes an issue of opinion.
The bottom line here is that the moderator ought to let the candidates debate and argue about each other's statements.
Well now we have gotten to the debate. We will see if Holt accepts his role as a member of the Hillary defense squad or if he will do his best to be impartial. The point of a presidential debate is not to see one candidate or the other debate the moderator. Rather, it is to see the two candidates debate each other. Hopefully, Holt understands that and will hold back. There is a time when one can fact check, but it deals only with facts. For example, we remember the time president Obama talked about visiting all 57 states. That was a factual mistake and it would be fine for the moderator to ask, "did you mean 50 states?" On the other hand, if Hillary were to say that she has always told the truth, it is not up to Holt to correct the record and say, "no, you are a known liar." That is more a conclusion than just a fact. If we look at the statement from the Lauer forum that drew the most criticism, Trump saying that he was against the war in Iraq before it began, that too is not a fact that should require the moderator to jump in. If Hillary wants to question that statement, she should and may do so. It is not Holt's job to jump in. Trump may have voiced luke warm support for that war a few months before it began, but it doesn't make his statement untrue. It becomes an issue of opinion.
The bottom line here is that the moderator ought to let the candidates debate and argue about each other's statements.
No comments:
Post a Comment