Had this thought while reading about Newt’s dust-up with a journalist during a debate: Why are all political debates moderated by journalists, and journalists alone? Journalists report and shape “the news”; why does this uniquely qualify them to moderate debates? I can think of much more interesting choices: a team of economists from academia and enterprise; a group of philosophers; representatives from various religious faiths and atheists; the heads of the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce; even the heads of various political parties. Journalists have had more than their chance; time to let people from other walks of life enter the debate.
Help me brainstorm about other points of view that might be invited to moderate political debates.
I think they could replace the moderator with a host/timekeeper. The party’s national or state committee could select the topics to be discussed, time limits, arrange for a venue and air time on network television, etc.
If moderated, I’d like to see a Republican national security debate moderated by John Bolton and/or Condoleezza Rice. For a debate on the judicial system, Ken Starr and/or John Ashcroft.