Why Independent Media Pundits Should Be Allowed To Moderate Presidential Debates
Expectation feeds frustration.
If you watched last night’s presidential debate hoping for a civilized back-and-forth on the issues that matter to you, or to be completely swayed into changing your vote, or even hoping for a fair fight, then you deserve all of the negative emotions you are feeling today. Many people knew going in it would be a feces fest, and a feces fest it was.
Fox News commentator and registered Democrat Chris Wallace added to the slop. There was not any difference between Wallace and George Stephanopoulos, who moderated that sham of a town hall on ABC. Wallace's performance has people on both sides are suggesting he stay away from debate moderation from this point forward. Wallace was the referee in the Robin Reid vs. Sven Ottke match, constantly allowing Biden to regain his composure. He was just as much a part of the chaos as Trump and Biden.
Moving forward, the political leanings of the moderators will only go further left. Senior executive and political editor at C-SPAN Steve Scully (who also interned for Joe Biden while he was in college) will moderate the second debate, while NBC’s Kristen Welker will do the honors in the third debate. The cards will continue to be stacked against the 45th President.
Moderators must be an accredited member of the mainstream media. That is fair if you subscribe to the notion that the large news outlets have the public’s best interest at heart. However, a growing contingent of Americans has a distrust for the media and their biases. In a 2018 poll conducted by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, 49% of Americans see a “great deal” of bias in their news coverage and 37% see a “fair amount”. The poll saw an increase in the percentage of people who felt biases in reporting the news was a “major problem” (65% in 2017 up to 73% in 2018).
Many news-watchers feel the one-sided reporting is by design. Over half (54%) believe the reporter is misrepresenting or misinterpreting facts, while almost 30% feel the facts are completely made up.
With all of the distrust for mainstream media (and deservedly so), perhaps a debate moderated by an independent political pundit, free from the purse strings and conflict of interest connected to the corporation-run news conglomerates, would be a good idea. According to Pew Research Center data, 42% of people get their news from independent YouTube news channels. 44% of the most popular YouTube news channels have one identifiable on-air personality. Most people do not see a big issue getting their news from YouTube:
Joe Rogan jumped started this conversation when he offered to moderate a debate, to which Trump agreed:
Rogan, the host of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, has over 200 million monthly listens and YouTube views. He certainly has the platform and a tough, no-nonsense decorum that the presidential candidates would respect. Back in 2019, Andrew Yang endorsed Joe Rogan as a debate moderator:
What about Harvard Law School graduate Ben Shapiro? He is one of the most respected and feared names in politics. Content on his social media platforms and The Daily Wire dwarf the likes, views and streams that many major news outlets accumulate. He has been highly critical of both sides of the aisle and has lambasted Trump for his immature use of Twitter.
Cenk Uygur, founder and on-air personality on The Young Turks YouTube channel, has the political foundation and knowledge to host a debate.
These personalities all have political biases, but no more than the people who are already allowed to moderate. You could potentially bring in different audiences (more importantly, younger audiences) to the screen. Many young Americans do not vote because they do not feel a connection to anything going on in politics. On the surface, it is understandable. Much of the American political discourse is old people arguing old people about issues that affect old people. Bringing in Ben Shapiro, whose audience skews younger and is only 36 years old himself, could frame topics in a fashion that could appeal to a wide array of citizens.
Many of the arguments against having non-traditional names moderate debates fall flat. Some suggest that the independent YouTubers might try to steal the spotlight and use the debate platform to their monetary advantage. It already happens every week when a CNN reporter asks Trump a completed slanted question looking to capitalize on a viral moment.
As YouTube news grows in popularity, more independent moderators make sense.
