Summary: On wednesday October 28th, the CNBC hosted the republican debate for the presidential candidates. Throughout the debate, the candidates were asked controversial questions that seemed to be biased and more of a harassment rather than an interest in their beliefs. The debate was mostly and argument between the candidates and the moderators who did not do much moderating and instead sparked argument. The goal of the debate was to acquire equal talking time for each candidate so that they could express to America their goals for their presidency, but the goal was not completed. Certain candidates were excluded and did not get much talking time. The moderators were more liberal, which was wrong because having the opposite party moderate a debate for the other party is asking for a fight. Both the moderators, Becky Quick and Carl Quintanilla received criticism on how they ran the debate. After this debate, the RNC cancelled their agreement and scheduled debate with the CNBC for later in the year. The RNC believes the moderators did not do their job and were unfair to the candidates. They are very disappointed in how the debate was run.
Should debates be ran by the opposite party? Did the RNC make the right decision to cancel the upcoming debate since the first one was not successful with the CNBC? Would you make the same decision as the RNC and did their decision have validity?
Is this just the reality of partisan politics today? Journalists are supposed to be nonpartisan, what is the evidence the CNBC moderators were not?
ReplyDeleteI think that the debates should be run by a mix of people from political parties. Candidates should be given the opportunity to answer questions from all sides. I don't think that having opposing sides contribute is bad, I just think that these moderators in specific weren't respectful of the privilege they were granted. I wouldn't cancel because all publicity is a good opportunity. Although it may tend to be more negative, there will also be opportunities to make positive points. However, I see their point of view. Making a mockery of Republican views can't be taken lightly. It is an example of partisan politics today and the CNBC moderators obviously weren't considering they didn't allow equal talking time.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that debates should be ran by an opposite party. This is just asking for an argument like debate, and a very serious competition between the party's. Not only would the people of America dislike it, there would be no real topics or discussion, it would all be trash talk and not all candidates would have the same talking time. I feel that it was a great idea to cancel future debates with this corporation, because of the outcome. I would have acted the same way as RNC.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that debates should be run by the opposite party, because, as you said, it is just asking for a fight. The moderator was speaking from his own interest, and it is unfair to all the candidates because a moderator should be neutral. Seeing as the recent debate did not go as planned, I think that the RNC made a smart decision, because now they know that the way they organized the debate didn't work and they need to change it. I would agree with the RNC's decision because the moderator failed to do his job, and the debate was not conducted in an orderly fashion. I think there is validity in the reasoning behind canceling the debate because now they know the importance of having a neutral moderator to run debates, and they can make decisions about how to ensure the debate goes more smoothly next time.
ReplyDeleteI think that the debates should be run by a mix of people from political parties or from an outside third party. This way it eliminates bias and allows for different viewpoints to be addressed in a more respectful manner instead of a competition. I do agree that the liberals who ran the past debate should not have ran it in the way that they did. But other problems could arise if solely the Republicans ran the Republican debate. They could introduce more favorable topics and not give as clear of a representation of the party's unfavorable attributes. There should be a balance between sparking debate as well as moderating it if it gets out of hand.
ReplyDeleteDebates held by the opposite party is not productive unless it is completely unbiased which we know in politics is unreal. The person asking questions needs to be from the party who isn't hosting or someone with no interest of the host or guest party. RNC played well because they know how to behave and set up a debate properly from now on. I would say that the moderator messed up by trying to be unbiased.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that debates should be run by the opposite party. If there was already controversy with the moderator being fairly "liberal", having the opposite party run the debates would only result in debates that are clearly one-sided. The point of the debates is to give the people the opportunity to see how the candidates would deal with controversial issues. In every debate, there will be controversy, but the controversy should be dealt with in a civil manner. I think that RNC made the right decision by canceling the future debate, as it was clear that if the public could not even handle one, the next one would only create more problems. I think their decision was valid, as long as those who were part of the debate also agreed with the decision.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that debates should be run by the opposite party, because it would take away from what some of the candidates want to get across, and replace it with arguments and avoidable fighting. The RNC noticed that the debate went badly, and understands that if they put opposing sides with each other, all it is going to do is take away from important topics that need to be discussed. Debates would start to get out of hand, and end up not even be worth having, since it would get so off topic.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that the debate should be fun by the opposite party. They do not share the same ideas and opinions of the candidates so they are more likely going to ask questions that make the candidates look bad. I understand that a debate is supposed to occur but with a moderator from the opposite party running the show it would be more of a fight than anything. Yes I do believe that they made the right decision because they do not only have to make the candidates content but they need the ratings and after the backlash of the previous debate they had some making up to do. I would make the same decision as the RNC. But, I would not have someone from the same party be the moderator. I would choose someone who is undecided or who is rooting for a third party candidate.
ReplyDeleteI believe parties should have debates ran by an unbiased party. I know this is hard to come by but with having the opposition run the debate, that is just a disaster waiting to happen as was seen with this debate. I think the RNC did make the right decision to cancel the upcoming debate since the first one was not successful with the CNBC. This debate was not fair to the candidates. Though I may disagree with what they believe,I believe that they should be able represent themselves properly without being constantly shut down by the opposing party. Overall, I would have made the same decision as the RNC because I believe everyone has the right to be represented without bias, especially if these people are to run our country.
ReplyDelete