Will This Be The Future Of Presidential Debates?
In the first Presidential debate, hosted by a liberal media outlet, Hillary Clinton was obviously favored. Lester Holt asked her questions strictly about policy, but he asked Donald Trump about irrelevant matters.
Clinton got to explain her positions while Trump was attacked about his tax records and calling a woman fat twenty years ago. Holt constantly interrupted Trump
Voters need to be more concerned about what Hillary has done than rude things Trump has said. Not only has she referred to Americans as irredeemable deplorables and basement dwellers, but she has also compromised national security, lied under oath, and gotten Americans killed.
Her husband was impeached for sexual misconduct, but she criticizes Trump for being hateful toward women because he told a woman, who was under contract and therefore required to maintain a certain appearance, she was fat.
However, Lester Holt, who is supposed to be an unbiased moderator, never pointed out any of those facts.
This raises a bigger question about the debate system. How can biased media outlets conduct debates?
If NBC has a moderator there, Fox News should have a moderator too. If one moderator can attack the Republican, one should be there to attack the Democrat. No candidate should be favored.
The point of a debate is to hear the candidates’ policies and how they differ. Instead, the biased moderators turn the debates into a crusade against the opposition. When this happens, the undecided voters do not get to make a choice about who they agree with most — they are left to watch the circus.
Until debates can truly be unbiased, they are pointless. Voters deserve to know where the candidates stand on the issues, not listen to two hours of attacks about one person’s personal life.