Moderators or manipulators? Blame CNN for the big debate debacle. 

A major problem today for televised political debates — journalists expect to be part of the show.  

Four people were on the CNN debate stage Thursday evening. Two have a chance to be elected president in November. The two others — the event’s moderators — apparently felt compelled to insert themselves into the limelight as well. 

That’s a major problem today for televised political debates: Journalists expect to be part of the show.  

Moderators are not content simply to raise topics and operate stopwatches. They love to show how enterprising and important they can be on the big political stage. And CNN’s moderators, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, were no different, caving to the temptation of trying to steer the political dialogue according to their journalistic instincts. 

Journalists, by their nature, are accustomed to probing, challenging and even grilling newsmakers. But that approach is only suitable for one-on-one interviews, not political campaign forums, when the candidates are right there to do their own interrogations of each other. Once the moderators start to inject themselves into the debate, they are wide open to accusations of bias.  

Tapper and Bash, of course, are veteran journalists. They each anchor news shows on CNN. They co-host a weekend public affairs interview show. So, on one level, it is understandable that they would adhere to their journalistic inclinations, turning what is supposed to be a debate between two candidates into dueling press conferences. The problem is that this approach becomes rather unmanageable and diminishes the focus from being solely on the candidates. 

No doubt the Tapper and Bash team had a tall task at Thursday’s debate, and it is worth noting that the forum didn’t go totally down a ravine, as happened in 2020, or even in the Donald Trump- Hillary Clinton clashes in 2016. The moderators kept general order, managed time limits, and maintained their poise even when the candidates didn’t. It certainly helped that the production format allowed for keeping a candidate’s microphone muted when he wasn’t speaking. That new practice stifled impromptu interactions, but was probably needed, given the mercurial temperaments of the debaters. 

But the moderators spent too much time on long-winded questions that were set up with factoids and premises. They ran with a grocery list approach to the topics raised, trying to cover way more territory than could sensibly be covered in 90 minutes. All public opinion polls show that the economy is No. 1 on prospective voters’ minds, but Tapper and Bash limited discussion of the economy to a single round at the outset of the debate.  

Many of the topics raised played to the advantage of one candidate or the other, most seeming to favor President Biden. The questions on abortion, January 6, the climate crisis, destroying democracy and child care were all in the Biden wheelhouse. That he failed to capitalize off such softballs doesn’t excuse the moderators for trying to pave the way. Political debate questions should be framed in a manner that provides an equal challenge to each candidate, but Tapper and Bash failed to craft such questions. 

The forum went off the rails at various times, with candidate insults, references to a porn star, claims about golf scores, and even more insults reducing the discussion to a barroom argument. The nation really doesn’t want to hear another quarrel about the “suckers and losers” claims of yesteryear. Biden and Trump bear the blame for such diminished dialogue, but the moderators allowed the nonsense to continue, apparently forgetting they controlled the mute buttons on the microphones.  

Both Biden and Trump boldly ignored direct questions at times, particularly as the debate droned on. Trump filibustered the climate change and child care topics. Biden detoured from a question about age concerns to somehow talk about South Korea and Samsung. Again, Tapper and Bash can hardly control such evasions, but on the other hand, they were the ones supposedly managing the playing field. 

Given what Americans already knew about the flaws of the presidential candidates on the stage, it was clear that the journalists trying to moderate an evening of chaos had a tall task, indeed. Perhaps it was an impossible chore to wrangle and control these unpolished candidates, who will never go down in American history as great orators. The result of the debate was a bizarre and unimpressive demonstration of political rhetoric at its worst. And there was little indication that the next debate — if it ever happens — has even the slightest chance of being better. 

Maybe the next debate should just remove moderators from the picture altogether. A verbal brawl just featuring the two candidates exchanging barbs and insults would hardly be worse than what was witnessed in Atlanta on Thursday. 

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant.