I suppose that it is physically possible to mess with the debate in that way. I would note, however, that it would be immediately (and loudly) condemned by the side that perceived the bias (and will probably be so decried, anyway), so that the effect of bias could be to push the vote in the opposite direction. It would also go along way toward tarnishing the moderator’s record, making future employment and salary discussions more difficult.
Exactly. Their “Ifill’s Moderation Was Biased!” ads should be hitting the web within the hour.
That’s just what I was thinking. Aside from the stuff they’ve stolen from Obama, the only thing the McCain campaign really has going now is this “Gotcha Journalism” nonsense. It’s a wonderful excuse, as it plays to the base that thinks Rush Limbaugh is a beacon of truth, and it allows them to write off poor performances in interviews by acting like the fix was in all along.
Don’t discount that there are more than a few voters who will say (in their homes)–well, she’s black, therefore she’s biased against McCain, and will go easier on Biden and harder on Palin. And there will be those Obama supporters who will think that because she’s black, she’ll go easier on Biden as well. Kind of a catch 22 for poor Gwen.
I long ago gave up underestimating the insanity of some of the populace–on either “side”.
In the first debate, Jim Lehrer also picked the questions. Since candidates have different strengths/weaknesses, playing questions to the strengths of one but not the other can directly influence the outcome.
It wouldn’t be worth the trouble. It would alienate people in the press and validate any complaints the McCain camp or Republicans might make.
So far it seems Palin has no strengths so everything except for a question on the finer points of field dressing a moose or hockey will be to her weakness.
Oddly enough, I think the hardest question would be to ask her to describe her position on (whatever). It’s gotta be hard remembering what you’ve been told your positions on different issues are.
And it wouldn’t stop all people from saying the moderation was biased, whoever’s doing it. But it would have a good appearance.
Palin’s weakness, or at least supposed weakness, is that she doesn’t know very much, and that she’s a poor communicator. The answer to that is to let her hang herself with her own noose - there has to be as spotless as possible moderation, and Biden needs to act as politely as possible. Likewise the victory for McCain’s team would be Palin responding knowledgably and clearly, and while that happening in an arena of objectivity would be bad for the Obama campaign, doing so when a moderator is biased - or is thought to be - is just going to to build the story that she’s always been knowledgable and articulate but suffers from biased interviewing/reporting. Thereby allowing some to handwave any problems they think she might’ve had up to now.
Either way, the appearance of objective moderation is something that will hurt Biden and Obama less. And speaking purely as myself, i’d pretty much like as un-potentially-biased a debate as possible, too.
Not necessarily, if the question is designed to show one candidates strength.
For example, in the article you linked to previously about her past debates, one of the questions was
‘Name one bill that had recently passed that we didn’t like and one that we did’. Suprisingly, her opponents, a governor and a representative, had no problem answering the question. They deal with them everyday and could give very detailed answers. Palin, a mayor, didn’t answer it. Even if she had named some bills, she wouldn’t have been able to give the level of detail the other two debaters could. In Obama’s words, it was ‘inside baseball’
The question, whether intended or not, was biased. Samething if this debate has questions regarding foreign policy that Biden is privy to in his committee.
Nothing personal, but this sounds like a classic case of overanalysis. All politicians blame the media, and Republicans in particular make hay with it. They did it during their own nominating convention, for crying out loud. The bottom line is this: if Palin does poorly, you can expect some complaints about the moderation regardless of who is moderating. If Ifill’s performance is bad, that’s going to be the issue. From my point of view, some people are just psyching themselves out by talking about all the potential pitfalls in this debate. I don’t think it’s that complicated or perilous.
There is nothing wrong with contrasting both candidates this way. It’s only a problem if you tailor questions to the strengths of one candidate and not the other.
“Inside baseball”?
How so?
Seems a fair question to me. She was running for Governor. If I were running for Governor I would be doing so because I would believe I could do a better job than anyone else. In order to form that opinion I would have to have knowledge of bills that were passed and disagreed with and could be improved. She was not asked the details on some obscure bill that floats by on day-to-day business. She was asked to name a bill she liked and one she didn’t (or Alaskans liked and Alskans didn’t…not sure how to parse that).
Surely this is a question someone running for Governor should be able to field no?
Easy enough to craft a question that would expose Palin’s weaknesses. Can’t imagine a question that would play to her strengths. Such as they aren’t.
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.
At my last job interview I was asked questions about an applications I wasn’t familiar with, and I didn’t get the job. Who knew they were biased? 
“With the high cost of crude oil these days, do you believe the ecological impact of drilling in ANWR is more important than the economic impact of increased oil supply? Why or Why not?”
That would be a fair question and certainly one she is knowledgeable about. However, is she clear on McCain’s position here and will she toe the party line (if it doesn’t match her previous statements on the issue…I have no clue if they do or not)? It is the mismatch between her personal philosophies and the campaign’s philosophies and where she can stray and where she needs to toe the company line that will screw her up.
Really?
“A question for both candidates: Some people say Washington is out of touch with the common person. Tell me the last time you shopped in a grocery store.”
I recall that in 1991 Democrats made great hay out of the fact that George Bush Sr. didn’t know what a grocery scanner was. It showed he was out of touch. I believe there actually was a debate question on precisely that. Why not ask it again?
“A question on ANWR: Senator Biden is against drilling there, and Governor Palin is for it. Tell me specifically what harm you think will come to ANWR as a result of drilling, or why you think drilling will have little impact.”
“Follow-up question: Have you ever been to ANWR? Do you think representatives who vote against drilling there should make an effort to see it for themselves, given how serious the energy problem is?”
I could go on all day. It’s a trivial matter to look up the respective records of two people and craft questions that benefit one at the expense of the other.
And even if the questions are pre-written, a moderator can choose how much emphasis to put on each one, and whether to accept a non-answer to each one. There are lots of ways to inject bias.
Bias is a real problem. Even if Ifill tries her best to be objective, her bias could lead her to being harsher on some responses than others, just as the bias of this forum causes some people to see no problem at all with Ifill acting as moderator, when they would recoil in horror at the thought of Brit Hume being the moderator. And Hume is every bit as good a journalist as Ifill, and just as capable of keeping overt bias out of the proceedings.
I’d have no problem with Brit Hume as moderator and think he would do a professional job of it.
As for your questions they are fair and may well be asked. Biden could easily field the grocery store question. He is the second poorest member of the Senate and commutes to his home every day in Delaware. I’d bet money he shops for himself and probably likes to run the BBQ in the summer with a beer in hand.
ANWR is fine as a question and relevant but it is one question of many they will be asked on all sorts of things. When you stray away from issues directly relevant to Alaska Palin has clearly shown she has problems in answering.