Candy Crowley (photo: Edward M. Pio Roda / CNN)
CNN reporter Candy Crowley was apparently causing the Obama and Romney campaigns to panic over the weekend. Why? She was telling people she might ask a question at tonight’s presidential debate.
Time‘s Mark Halperin reported (10/14/12) that
has done a series of interviews on her network in which she has suggested that she will assume a broader set of responsibilities. As Crowley put it last week, “Once the table is kind of set by the town-hall questioner, there is then time for me to say, ‘Hey, wait a second, what about X, Y, Z?'”
The campaigns apparently didn’t much care for that XYZ business. According to the memorandum laying out the “rules” for the debate, the moderator of the town hall event would have very limited input in the actual show. As Halperin notes, in 2008 the Obama and McCain campaigns were bothered by moderator Tom Brokaw’s tendency to “redirect” audience questions.
Much of this would be clarified if the process of putting on the presidential debates were more transparent. FAIR joined other groups in an effort led by Open Debates to make the debate contract public and to demand a more accountable structure.
Yesterday, Time‘s Halperin published the debate memorandum, an agreement between the two major party campaigns that lays out their rules for each debate.
Some of the stipulations are familiar. The candidates will not issue challenges for additional debates, or appear in any other debates not sanctioned by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The campaigns agree to the Commission’s rules that effectively shut out out independent candidates from participating.
The memorandum states that the debate moderators were proposed by the Commission and were accepted by the campaigns. This is an important acknowledgment, in that it reminds us that the major parties are basically in control of who’s asking the questions at these debates.
As for the debates themselves, we learn that the candidates have agreed not to ask each other direct questions at any of the debates, which has been a feature of previous contracts.
As for tonight’s debate, the moderator’s role is severely circumscribed. Crowley’s job is to pre-screen audience questions, and to make sure that during the debate the questioner asks precisely the question he/she had submitted in writing. If an audience member does this, the rules require the moderator to cut off the question, and the Commission may also “cut off the microphone of any such audience member.”
After the initial candidate answers, there are brief comment periods. The moderator is to “manage” this process, but “will not rephrase the question or open a new topic.”
The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minutes response period.
As Paul Farhi reported in the Washington Post (10/15/12), Crowley still seems to think that asking questions is what a journalist is supposed to do:
Crowley left little doubt Monday that she plans to function as a journalist during the debate at Hofstra University in New York. On CNN‘s the Situation Room, she told colleague Wolf Blitzer: “I’m trying to just know what the facts are, what the [candidates’] positions are, so that when something comes up that maybe could use a little further explanation, it might be as simple as: ‘But the question, sir, was oranges and you said apples. Could you answer oranges?’ Or it might be as simple as: ‘But, gee, how does that fit with the following thing?'”
It’s not hard to see that Crowley’s understanding of the job is a little different than what the campaigns have in mind.
Farhi quotes Commission co-chair Frank Fahrenkopf explaining that Crowley is there to “facilitate discussion,” which he sees as
a very broad thing. As long as she stays within her mandate, she’s not breaking any rules. She’s not supposed to be someone who’s arguing with the candidates. She’s not supposed to be an advocate in any way or inject herself into the debate. Beyond that, she’s not bound by whatever the campaigns agreed to.
So as long as she follows the rules—which seem to say she can say very little at all—she’s free to do as she likes. But she shouldn’t “inject herself” into the debate.
No doubt many journalists find these rules too restrictive, if not totally unacceptable. Mark Knoller of CBS tweeted:
No real reporter would agree to forgo followup questions and just call on audience members.
If the debate “rules” are a farce, then reporters should join the call for a more transparent, open presidential debate structure—one that allows journalists to behave like journalists, and would allow debate organizers to set up more inclusive events.
There was a great quote from George Farah in the New York Times about the progression of the debates from bad to worse.
Hopefully, this formatting will work:
The article is Memo Outlines Format and Rules for Candidate Debates, just in case the quote thing didn’t work.
This is something of a show of “independence” on Crowley’s part, isn’t it?
I mean, she’s to be the selector – or more accurately, the censor – of audience questions, and will make certain no deviation from the script occurs. Her professed concern for open debate would seem to conflict with that role, don’t you think?
I think this might be more a matter of feeling personally slighted than any concern for “journalistic integrity”.
If she had any fealty to the latter, she wouldn’t be party to such a sham.
And she never would have been considered for the position in the first place, would she?
I would rate any individual’s performance in the “debate” (I reluctantly adopt the received nomenclature) on the basis of how thoroughly she or he ignores these rules. Be it the Democrat, the Republican, or the moderator, that’s how I would determine the winner.
For me, if there’s a questioner who goes off-script, and a sound engineer who refuses to cut off that person’s mike, there’s your next Vice President and President right there.
Well it’s embarrassing for the candidate to have to answer actual questions.
Maybe we should all go and post one question for the candidates, and see if we can bump it to the top….
“If the debates are going to be controlled to the point where we the public aren’t even involved anymore, why should we bother to pay attention to you, or vote for you later?”
First of all, the debates are held by the phony Commission on Presidential Debates which is a bipartisan commission that has utter contempt for democracy. They have been keeping third party candidates out of the debates even though the majority of Americans polled have wanted them in.
Second, even if third party candidates were allowed along with open questions and follow up, what can be learnt by the electorate in a short period of “he said she said” bout? The problem is with the MSM which during the four years between elections does not allow any free flow of ideas especially those who threaten our corporate totalitarianism. The problem is with all those blacks and latinos who are disenfranchised under the guise of war on drugs. The problem is with campaign finance by the ruling elite which turns our politicians into whores who sell their votes to the highest bidders.
When Ben Franklin said, we had “…a republic if we can keep it. ” He wasn’t kidding, was he.
Here’s my idea, because it seems that this one is not working. I read about people saying this one won or that one won, as if these 2 people had never spoken in public before. The media made it seem as if whoever won the debates won the presidency. That’s just stupid.
If this will be the furture of debates, then just skip debates totally; however, to have a real debate, then the audience may ask any question and the moderator may follow it up. The moderator would be Helen Thomas and that way we would all have a debate worth seeing.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS AND THE POLITBURO IS THAT YOU’D BE SENT OFF TO THE GULAG. OH WAIT! ISN’T POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT AND PERPETUAL CRISIS LIKE A GULAG?
Well she interrupted Obama 9x……Mitt 29 times.She seemed to be trying her best to talk FOR Obama.Her input into “Terrorism” semantics(disregarding the simple fact that his top advisors said for 10 days it was the movie,so were the hell was he?), and blocking any discussion of fast and furious was telling.I wonder why we need a moderator at all.I mean we are talking about the president of the United states,and the opposing parties candidate for same.If they can’t answer questions handed to them- keeping to a set of rules then I just don’t know what.
@michael e: Did you stop and think perhaps the reason why she interrupted Obama less was because he was more civilized? Romney proved to be a certified bully during the first debate!
If those are the commission’s new rules, they might as well replace the term “moderator” with “facilitator.” Good for Crowley for not playing by the rules!
Micheal-e don’t you know that Romney‘s pattern is to interrupt, constantly saying he is short changed of time? He pulls it so often it needs to be ruled against. Not that it will. Crowley did point out that Romney was right about the 10 day delay of the Obama administration on the attack that killed four Americans in Libya.
Nightgaunt /Freespirit i thought Mitt and the president did a pretty good job in both debates despite the hyperbole and spin.All in all they showed their basic ideals for this country and the divergence.Their sit down at the New york Catholic fund raiser was fun and showed these men have fundamental disagreements, but like and respect each other.I thought Joe B was a waste of space.Whatever he had to say(and he had some points to ponder)was lost in his silliness.That aside none of these men told you the truth of how bad it is.Im not a huge Ron Paul fan but I think he would of spelled out the true nature of this countries death spin.