Jim Lehrer, Debate Moderator
September 24, 2008 11:28 am ET by Jamison Foser
There's a new Rasmussen poll that finds that more Americans think Jim Lehrer, Friday's debate moderator, will "try to help Barack Obama" than think he will try to help John McCain. (The vast majority either think Lehrer will try to play a neutral role or are unsure.) Since poll results that find the public suspects liberal bias on the part of the media tend to get more media attention than results that find the public suspects bias in favor of conservatives*, you can expect to hear a fair amount about the Rasmussen poll over the next few days.
So it's worth keeping in mind Jim Lehrer's performance in previous presidential debates. A few weeks ago, I described his bungling (and, intentionally or not, strongly pro-Bush) behavior during a key portion of the last debate between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000.
The short version is that Lehrer helped Bush falsely blur the differences between Bush and Gore on the Patients Bill of Rights by falsely suggesting the two candidates agreed on the issue. Then, when Gore asked Bush a straightforward question about whether Bush actually supported the same piece of legislation he supported, Lehrer told Bush: "Governor Bush, you may answer that if you'd like." So, in his role as moderator, Lehrer gave viewers the false impression that the candidates agreed (exactly the impression Bush wanted viewers to have) then, rather than pressing Bush to clarify his position, he made it optional. Naturally, Bush declined.
A longer version is available here.
There's another reason to think Lehrer's handling of the debate may (intentionally or not) end up helping McCain. In 1996, Slate's Jack Shafer described Lehrer's style:
Yet, even though he knows that most politicians, CEOs, and activists who appear on his show are accomplished liars, he offers little in the way of interruption or contradiction.
Lehrer himself has said he doesn't think it is his role to say someone is lying, even when he knows that is the case. If the general media consensus that John McCain has run the more dishonest campaign is correct, Lehrer's style is likely to benefit McCain.
* In May, a CBS/New York Times poll found that only 8 percent of Americans thought the media had been harder on McCain than on other candidates, while 28 percent thought the media had been easier on McCain than on other candidates. You probably didn't hear about that poll result; the media ignored it.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Mr. Lehrer is absolutely correct, it's not his role as moderator of a debate, or in interviewing any Public Official or candidate for Public Office, to call them a liar or to even say that they've just spoken a lie... his role is not as a Prosecutor or an accuser or plaintiff: those roles are played by others, such as the political opposition, or political activists, or (of course) actual Prosecutors... there seems to be a great and misguided misunderstanding here, that Journalists and members of the honest Press, are supposed to take up the roles of political activists, and act as a political opposition: they are not supposed to do that! That's actually the problem today, with pretended journalists and the dishonest (biased) press: they take it upon themselves to act politically (political activism) and to oppose the politics of those they interview... That's What Fox News Does! That's the problem!
I think I can see how this misunderstanding has taken root: in the absence of a vigorous political opposition (with Democratic leaders so spectacularly lame and ineffective), we turn by default to the Press and to honest Journalists, and hope that they will call George W. Bush and Dick Cheney et al, liars and thieves... that's not their job!
If Congressional Democrats (who hold Public Office and the power of Law) decline or otherwise shrink from a vigorous political opposition (and activism), then why would we expect those who do not hold Public Office, and have no power of the Law whatsoever, to accuse and prosecute and call anyone a liar?
I for one am absolutely disgusted by the cowardice and stupidity and even corruption of Democrats, in witnessing their ongoing spectacle of impotent political opposition to the Bush administration, and even to Republicans in Congress (where Democrats are our only Lawful and Official power of political opposition to them)...
I'm not confused in the least about who does and does not have the power of law in America: all Members of Congress (Democrats especially) and all administration Officials do, and Journalists and the honest Press do not...
I know who has a Legal obligation as a political opposition, and who does not...
And I'll never turn to true Journalists and to members of the honest Press (of whom I count Mr. Lehrer a member), and ask them to take up the roles of a political opposition or even political activists, because not only is that the responsibility of someone else, someone Official and elected and with the power of Law (DEMOCRATS), but also because that's the very problem today with the dishonest (biased) and pretended press: they are political activists in disguise, and oppose politically those they pretend to interview and report on...
That's what Fox News is all about: have you ever noticed that?
I've been watching the Lehrer since it was the MacNeil/Lehrer Report in the seventies.
After years of seeing the narrowness of debate allowed in those forums (real leftists are rare), I long ago concluded that Lehrer had a rightward bias.
There's also something deeper and more creepy about the show. I can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be a subtle assumption on the show that the U.S. is somehow unquestionably benevolent in its motivations and policies towards the world. That is, the Russian, or the Iranians, or Venezuela's Chavez are questionable in their motives and policies. The benevolence of the U.S. is just assumed.