Fox News sees mainstream media as liberal biased and thus tries to counter act by offering programming that is slanted toward a conservative point of the view to provide balance. Every political newscaster or commentator harbors some bias, however most Fox news people like Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly use bias as part of their public persona. The goal of the commission is not to balance their selection of moderators, selecting a conservative for one debate and a liberal for another but rather to select for each debate the most impartial moderator.Every news person at one time or another makes derogatory comments. However, I think the primary objection to Fox News commentators is they do it consistently as do MSNBC commentators. Greta Van Sustern is probably the least biased at Fox News.I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.
The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire
I have no doubt that any of the commentators on any of the networks would do their best to be impartial because their peers and the public judge their performance based on how impartial they are. However, if the moderator has a reputation for being partial, then it throws doubt on the fairness of the debate and this is something the commission wants to avoid.
Just as important as impartiality is the moderator's ability to control the flow of the debate giving enough time to each candidate to answer the questions but yet not allowing any one candidate to hog the spotlight. This I think is very difficult since that's what each candidate is trying to do.
I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.
In my opinion the commission has done a pretty good job of selecting moderators that were fair to both sides. The major complains has not been their bias but mistakes in controlling the debate.
Last edited: