Staff Reports
In the latest display of media circus antics, the moderators of a recent debate showed just how little they understand the spirit of true debate. Instead of letting the candidates engage with their own views, they took it upon themselves to play fact-checker and arbiter of truth, especially when it came to Trump. The moderators might as well have donned referee shirts, given the way they jumped in, blowing the whistle every time Trump dared to share his perspective.
It seems that the moderators believe their role is to be the ultimate authority on all matters, as if they have been bestowed with some sort of divine knowledge that empowers them to correct a former president. News flash: yelling “wrong” while waving a finger doesn’t magically transform someone’s deeply held beliefs into factual inaccuracies. The truth is subjective, especially when it’s being scrutinized through the lens of partisan bias. These so-called “fact-checks” looked more like attempts to undermine Trump’s message than to enlighten the audience.
Kamala Harris did far better than expected because @abcnews worked with her. I think she had questions in advance. #Debate2024 pic.twitter.com/cBay2iWSu8
— Grant Stinchfield (@stinchfield1776) September 11, 2024
The moderators’ approach raises an important question about the freedom of speech in political discourse. When did debating become a game where the referees get to decide which opinions are valid? These individuals showed up expecting to dictate the narrative rather than facilitate a genuine exchange of ideas. How refreshing it would have been to let Trump, a master of rhetoric, defend his points without constant interruptions that resemble a bad sitcom where the laugh track gets triggered at inappropriate moments.
Perhaps this tendency to interject is a reflection of the larger issue afflicting parts of the media. There’s a prevailing belief that partisanship should dictate the rules of engagement, leading to debates that sound less like discussions and more like lectures from Mr. Know-It-All. If the moderators had put as much energy into exploring the candidates’ ideas instead of policing their every word, the debate could have provided some real insights for the audience. Instead, it felt more like an attempt to score points on a scoreboard only they seemed to be keeping track of.
In the end, it’s clear that when facing off against Trump, the moderators may have been outmatched. Instead of letting the former president make his case, they opted for a strategy that ultimately revealed their biases. Anyone trying to engage with the political landscape recognizes the importance of discourse, and the antics of this particular debate’s moderators served only to remind viewers that sometimes the loudest voice in the room is the one insisting it knows what’s best for everyone else.
