Yesterday, I hoped that Tom Brokaw might do more with tonight’s debate than Gwen Ifill did with last Thursday’s (more in the way of pressing for answers to the questions being asked).
Today, I have less hope.
Among the rules for tonight’s “town hall-style” debate, agreed to by both campaigns “as part of a 31-page memorandum of understanding that leaked out this week,” a “document that is not made public, even by the Commission on Presidential Debates, clouding the transparency of this most important of public events” (this, the same Commission with the stated mission “to provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners”):
- The in-studio questioner must not deviate from his or her question and cannot ask a follow-up question. Their microphones will be turned off after they ask their questions.- The moderator cannot ask a follow-up.
- The camera cannot show the reaction of the questioner.
Why would Tom Brokaw show up to “moderate” this event? Why would (and does) any journalist? There is next-to-nothing journalistic about it, from the prohibitions on follow-up questions from the moderator or “in-studio questioner”—mics will be cut—to the entirely absurd restriction on questioner reaction shots, lest their frustrated faces tip off the TV audience that the candidate has not answered the question (why not have voters ask questions from behind a wall, or wearing Halloween masks?), to the entirely opaque manner in which these and other restrictions and format quirks were agreed to behind closed doors by persons (who, exactly?) who clearly don’t care about informing voters.
And yet, Brokaw has lent his good name and gravitas (years and years of gravitas-tending)… to this. Brokaw, of all people, does not have to play along. If he wanted to, he could conduct this debate on his own terms and his reputation wouldn’t suffer (if anything, it might be enhanced).
What if…?
A Brokaw Fantasy:
Good evening from Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee. I’m Tom Brokaw of NBC News. Welcome to the second presidential debate between the Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, and the Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.The Commission on Presidential Debates is the sponsor of this event and the one remaining presidential debate.
Tonight, each candidate will have ninety seconds to answer a question posed by ….
You know what? No.
I’m Tom Brokaw. And I may not follow the rules that either the moderator (me) or you (McCain, Obama) or you (The Commission) agreed to, but I’m going to get these candidates to talk straight to the American people. [Wink]
I’m going to ask follow-up questions when the candidates ignore the question posed by the “in-studio questioner,” ahem, voter, person. Because that’s what journalists do. And that’s, presumably, why these “in-studio questioners,” er, people, voters, took the time to compose questions (to hear the answers). And that’s, presumably, why a journalist is needed to cull through all these questions ahead of time and separate the wheat from the chaff—so that the wheaty ones will actually be considered, addressed (if not, ultimately, fully answered).
The candidates aren’t having regular press conferences these days, and the way this debate has been set up enables them to, with impunity, once again avoid answering questions. I cannot let this format stand.
OK. So. Where was I?
Right: The audience here in the hall has promised to remain very polite, no cheers, applause, no untoward outbursts, except right at this minute now, as we welcome Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama….
Hey, a person can fantasize.
UPDATE: Hopes up? A “senior campaign official” tells Politico’s Ben Smith that “Brokaw wasn’t a party to the deal” [the debate rules and format] “and hasn’t agreed to it, so the campaigns are expecting follow-up questions.” So, they’re hoping for the best, but “expecting” the worst, I guess.


For both candidates. If elected, and should the economy be far from improved in 4 years, will your excuses elude to the fact that you inherited this mess and that it takes longer than one term to make any improvement?
Posted by steve garris on Tue 7 Oct 2008 at 05:30 PM
I believe the mediator has a duty to ask for a clear answer to question given. I also believe the candidates are entitled to follow up on an opponents comments. These debates are not like the ones of the past. They dont dig deep enough into the issues at hand and as a tax payer I'm furious.
Posted by Tana S Meadows on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 02:32 PM
With regards to Mr. Brokaw and the rules, there was one exchange that I found to be a bit bizarre, and about which I haven't heard/read any comments, though it is possible that just missed it/them.
After one instance when Senator McCain had concluded his remarks re. Senator Obams's tax plan (a position which has been repeatedly proved to be false, by any number of sources, but which McCain and Palin continue to repeat on the stump, Senator Obama asked Tom Brokaw for a moment to respond. Mr. Brokaw responded that these were the rules the candidates agreed to, and he must move on. His very next statement was, "Things are kinda' loose here, and so I am going to add my own question to the next one from the audience". I am paraphrasing, but that is the gist of it.
Posted by ron cypert on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 03:06 PM
For Ron Cypert...
It is true what you said. Brokaw allowed McCain to ramble on with an absolute lie regarding Barack Obama's tax plan, and when Barack tried to respond, Brokaw cut him off.
I believe Tom Brokaw thanked John McCain five times during the debate. He never thanked Barack Obama once. Brokaw's first question regarding the Navy was a softball to his personal friend McCain. I don't get all the hoopla over a Tom Brokaw. On Meet the Press two weeks ago, he ended that show with an absolute lie regarding the fact that McCain was the preference of the American people, something from some poll taken weeks earlier. I don't recall Brokaw coming back to Meet the Press and apologizing for his lie. And he talks about Keith Olberman being partisan. Yes, he is, but when Olberman speaks, he speaks with truth and facts. Finally, I don't understand why NBC and MSNBC insist on keeping on old white men like Brokaw and Pat Buchanan whose 20th century prejudices are so apparent. TV media, wake up. The country is changing and no longer willing to tolerate your one sided-biases. These men are behind the curve. They need to be gone.
Posted by Janet Gaudiello on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 05:57 PM
Sadly, I heard many excellent questions that went completely unanswered in the Brokaw moderated debate. One woman asked Obama whether or not healthcare should be considered a commodity. Obama "answered" by saying healthcare is an important issue and he gets a lot of questions about healthcare. He went on to once again explain his healthcare reform plan which we have all heard before. Another woman asked about the sovereignty of Pakistan. /this would have been an excellent opportunity to discuss the democratic takeover that the people of Pakistan led on thier own, and the willingness of Pakistan's new president Zardari to rid his people of violent extremists. Obama answered with "if they are unwilling or unable" to cooperate with the US, then military intervention is possible, then McCain reply was basically Obama is naive, vote for me...very disappointing.
Posted by Michele on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 10:35 PM
Brokaw was someone who once I liked and respected but then he started to be too conservative and favor the generation or war and scarcity instead of embracing the positive and true. That's ok no one is perfect. Obama still won this debate too but needs to distance himself from McCain. McPain and Palin are both unfit to lead because of their wrongly held belief systems (belief is always a lie) and their war without end mentality...to only fund the military industrial complex is the greatest sin of all ("thou shalt not kill," soverignity must be embraced for the US and all nations; break up all monopolies; We need Kucinich and Nader not more of the same. Bush/Cheney which is to say McPain/Palin are the cause of all woes in the USA period. The robots do not even debate, they demean my country with their lies. We are better than our so called leaders. Is Brokaw part of some secret society or just a miserable old man who ought to retire? Go Obama...I pray you hear the majorities true will IF you attain the office you aspire to. And I pray you keep it if you get it since Biden too is a warhawk. Peace. Peace. Peace.
Posted by Rob G on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 11:56 PM
tom brokaw is a director of the cfr. if there are any us citizens left who do not know what the cfr is - it is the organization that is accomplishing one world government -by force. most premier media figures belong to the cfr. that is all one need know. tom brokaw, etal sold their souls to the globalists long ago. tom brokaw IS the enemy. please, check it out yourselves.
Posted by Peggy Nicholson on Wed 8 Oct 2008 at 11:58 PM
Brokaw is a heavy drinker and it's amazing that he could show up for the debate without falling on his face.
He did a crummy job of a horrible job description, namely managing the sound bites of the two corporation candidates, who don't really want to clarify anything except their advertising campaigns.
What a joke. And what a difference it would have made to have Nader on the stage. He would have SHREDDED both the empty suits.
-Wexler
Posted by William W. Wexler on Fri 10 Oct 2008 at 04:43 PM