 | ||
| Named from left to right: Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer, Candy Crowley, Martha Raddatz |
Criticism Greets List of Debate Moderators
Everyone has an agenda
The New York Times commented
last week on the stream of criticism and complaint surrounding the announcement
of the four moderators of the 2012 presidential debates. With the slew of
contrasting comments and quotes, this article may not have determined if this
fall’s moderators were “good” or “bad” choices, but it did effectively prove
that everyone has an opinion; everyone has an agenda. The commission strategically chose each the four moderators: Jim Lehrer, Bob Schieffer,
Candy Crowley, and Martha Raddatz. Lehrer’s involvement in eleven previous
presidential debates and Schieffer’s years of professional experience made them
leading choices for this year’s moderators. “A desire for diversity” elevated
Crowley and Raddatz to top contenders and led commission members to choose
Crowley as the first female presidential debate moderator in 20 years. However,
as commission member Mike McCurry said, “We cannot make everybody happy.” Not only did the commission have an agenda
while making its decisions, but those critiquing the selection have their own
agenda as well. Univision, The National Association of Black Journalists, the
presidential campaign teams, and even individuals such as Rush Limbaugh and
Gwen Ifill all have their own organizational, political, or professional gain
in mind when complaining about the various choices.
Whether praising or critiquing the commission’s
decision, everyone has an agenda, and the media is the means to impose that
agenda on the public. Why is there so much complaint and criticism surrounding
the decision? It is because certain news stations, organizations, or people
groups feel they will miss out on an opportunity to make their opinions known.
They will be unrepresented in a prime-time, highly viewed media event and feel
their causes will be set back as a result of that exclusion. They will miss out
on an opportunity to prey on the public opinion. The well-being and success of
the presidential debate is not the goal to be attained. It is the attention of
the viewers. It is we. To know that we, as the public, are the ultimate prey of
these individuals, organizations, and the media as a whole makes one stop and
question the true focus of every question, answer, or advertisement present
during the debate. It makes one question the true agenda behind it all.
