Traditionally, in journalism, if you outrage both sides of the political equation then you must be doing your job.
Yet in the case of US presidential debate moderator Chris Wallace, it is seen as evidence of failure.
The vitriol has been widespread, with few defending his handling of the debacle of a debate. The veteran broadcaster was accused of “losing control” by other seasoned journalists.
The left blamed him for Trump’s rampage; the right accused him of aiding and abetting Joe Biden.
The fact that the highly respected and experienced Wallace works for Fox News makes it even more divisive and confusing. He is the token leftie at Fox, so no wonder his own colleagues are relishing joining in the attacks.
What is agreed by all sides is that it was an appalling spectacle — uncomfortable to watch and little help to either candidate. Yet how much can the moderator be blamed?
Not as much as he has been, I would argue.
As someone who has worked as a presenter on a right-wing television network, I have moderated many discussions with numerous Trump wannabees.
The first thing that should be noted is that it is as much about theatre as it is about content. Indeed, let’s not pretend that even free-to-air television has not blurred the line between news and entertainment.
I too have been accused of “losing control” of a program.
No matter how many ground rules you lay down before going to air, once the red light goes on it can be a free-for-all. And it’s not just the guests doing the arguing and interrupting.
Ideally the moderator should remain impartial. But when the crazy is dialled up too far, it’s difficult not to lose your patience, as Wallace did, and weigh into the debate.
Often the only way you can try to regain control is to interject — and if pleading doesn’t work you find you have to keep raising your voice. That always leads to a backlash, not just from the guests but the audience as well.
I was famous for my eye-rolling over some of the more outrageous comments by former Sky contributor Ross Cameron, but eventually that wasn’t enough.
It prompted Ross to quip after I had talked over him once too often: “Are you paid by the interruption?”. At least he said it with humour.
Being a female, the personal abuse from viewers was always centred on my “shrill” voice, even though the numerous males screaming on Sky were never called out for it. (At least when attacked by the left it’s usually about your alleged political bias, not your appearance).
It’s not realistic to simply mute the offenders’ microphone, as some are suggesting ahead of the next US debate. On the rare occasions we resorted to that, when you couldn’t hear anything bar the shouting, it did not mute the attacks on the presenter from on and off the air.
Sometimes when there was no way to de-escalate the argument, you throw to a commercial break and give everyone a time-out — but this option was not available to Wallace in the 90-minute ad-free program.
On one occasion even that didn’t work for me, as two macho men refused to stop arguing in the break and had to be hurriedly pushed off set as I told them to take it outside. Not surprisingly, they skulked to their cars rather than have a physical confrontation.
It’s not as easy as it looks when you’re on the other side of the camera and dealing with bully boys.
Luckily the moderators of our own election debates are dealing with reasonably civilised adults. For now.
Both Trump and Biden ostensibly agreed to the rules of engagement.
In reality, Trump obviously never intended to abide by the rules and went for the theatre of surly agro.
Many have said he was trying to throw Biden off, but more likely we are just observing the nature of the individual.
Trump’s behaviour suggests that he does not believe the rules, any rules/laws, apply to him and he holds them in contempt.
Be it science, tax laws or the rules of the debate Trump demonstrates that he sees himself as above them.
It was a disgraceful and shameful demonstration of just how broken the USA is right now with Trump as its leader.
Notable too that Trump indicated he will not accept an electoral loss and he expects white supremacists to take a “stand” in the event he loses.
May God help America…
If Mr Trump loses the election, even the Supreme Crt would not disgrace themselves by over turning the election result. Mr Biden can be sworn in anywhere and then civil war will ensue, thanks to Mr Trump
To my mind, the debate showed Trump up for what he really is. He had no option but to satisfy his base which he did in capital letters. No doubt he is a white supremacist and a dangerous one at that.
sceptical37
Put ’em both in a glass box and mute the buggers until it’s their turn to speak!
Trump was merely being true to himself. A glass box and/or mute button is a excellent idea. I am not sure how he would cope, however. Trump would be battering away at the glass or his podium, demanding to be heard. A toddler in full tantrum mode. Delicious thought!
With a bit of luck he would crack his skull on the armour glass, and give his base some real blood to bay over.
Yellow light 2 second warning, red light – the mic is off and the other side gets the balance of his time slot.
Of course Trump will never agree to such rules, as Dougz so correctly observed Trump believes no rules or laws apply to him. But Biden would and one glass enclosure would be enough….
ps Janine, no one really cares whether the moderator has their feelings hurt, they are just there to do a job.
I couldn’t agree more we expect to see entertainment and that is what the formula is all about.
What a moderator has to do is break with convention and actually educate and inform the audience as to what is unacceptable and especially why.
I don’t think one moderator is enough, consistently stopping the debate and explaining what and why a tirade or statement is unacceptable is the only way to run this spectacle.
One would expect Trump to storm off which is to be avoided so the rules and the tone need to be carefully set at the beginning.
The debate cannot be allowed to be an episode of the Apprentice.