CPD Announces 2016 Debate Moderators

[brooklynite]

Source: Commission on Presidential Debates

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. and Michael D. McCurry, co-chairs of the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), today announced the moderators for the 2016 general election presidential and vice presidential debates. The moderators, and the schedule and locations for the debates (as announced on September 23, 2015), are as follows:

First presidential debate:
Lester Holt, Anchor, NBC Nightly News
Monday, September 26, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Vice presidential debate:
Elaine Quijano, Anchor, CBSN and Correspondent, CBS News
Tuesday, October 4, Longwood University, Farmville, VA

Second presidential debate (town meeting):
Martha Raddatz, Chief Global Affairs Correspondent and Co-Anchor of "This Week," ABC
Anderson Cooper, Anchor, CNN
Sunday, October 9, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Third presidential debate:
Chris Wallace, Anchor, Fox News Sunday
Wednesday, October 19, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

The CPD also announced that Steve Scully, Senior Executive Producer, White House and Political Editor for C-SPAN Networks, will serve as backup moderator for all the debates.

Read more: http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=63&cntnt01origid=27&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80

[YOHABLO]

1. Corporate Corporate Corporate .. go figure.

[brooklynite]

3. Who would you pick as an alternative?

[BumRushDaShow]

5. They should have someone like

Bill Moyers. But that would probably never happen at this point.

[vlyons]

16. They would never like my picks

Joy Reid, Keith Olberman, Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Dan Rather

[brooklynite]

20. So you want a biased moderator who agrees with you?

[uppityperson]

51. Rather than a biased moderator who disagrees with you? Well, sure.

[yurbud]

64. I could think of a couple of people who disagree with me on most issues I'd like to see moderate

like Ron Paul (have him ask only foreign policy questions).

Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, a Republican, again, only on foreign policy.

Or anyone of any party who will ask why our government pursues austerity for the poor, working, and middle class while they turn a firehose of money at the rich when they experience the least discomfort and go out of their way to avoid taxing the rich.

And on criminal justice, why do those whose petty crimes hurt very few spend infinitely longer than those on Wall Street whose acts of fraud hurt billions.

[YOHABLO]

34. There are many choices. Anyone outside the corporate news box.

[RKP5637]

2. Thanks for posting this!!! n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

4. I suppose John King & George Stupidfuckidus

are crying in their Wheaties.

The CSPAN folks shouldn't be "backups". I have watched both Steve Scully & Susan Swain over the past 25+ years and of the plethora of revolving hosts (most of them horrible over at least the past 10 years - probably thanks to Bryan Lamb), those 2 have been pretty fair.

[MattP]

6. Martha Raddatz and Chris Wallace are both horrible

[YOHABLO]

38. I think Raddatz is hawkish and has a ''military bias'' too many inside the beltway (family) ties.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. Chris Wallace awful choice

Trump will stampede him and his questions to Hillary will leave
no good answers possible

[Zambero]

8. Wallace is unpredictable

Often in the tank for the Fox propaganda machine, and at other times seemingly objective. This sort of enigma just might catch Trump off guard, in the event that he anticipates a round of Hannity type softballs. It also might put Hillary in a better situation to disprove any number of discredited Fox News talking points. An overwhelming share of Fox listeners are baked in for Trump, to be sure, but undecideds listening in might get a different perception.

[forest444]

15. Absolutely.

Moreover, he's hosting the last - and therefore most influential - debate. Hillary should expect an ambush.

[Drunken Irishman]

28. The last debate is almost always the least significant.

I'd wager it's the first and second debate that prove more important. Obama got dinged badly in his first debate and it hurt him in the polls. There wasn't much movement, beyond stabilization, after the third debate.

[forest444]

31. You're right.

And I'm glad.

[mdbl]

62. Hillary should expect an ambush

I think she's used to that.

[forest444]

65. She certainly is.

If you can imagine it, the Rethugs have probably already accused her of it.

[bigdarryl]

9. Bottom line the Corp. news media trying to suck up to republicand

Because there so obsessed.with being labeled liberal media.

[Stainless]

10. They're all lame-ass, bought-and-paid-for Corporate Whores

They will ensure that Trump doesn't have to think or answer about anything of substance.

[NurseJackie]

11. I was hoping to see Gwen Ifill again

[LuckyLib]

26. Queen Latifah did a perfect Gwen -- that look is classic!

Probably what Gwen would like to do on a daily basis, but is actually a real journalist and keeps a lid on it!

[NurseJackie]

27. I often wonder how the good journalists manage to keep a straight face ...

... when interviewing idiots.

[SunSeeker]

68. They don't. Good journalists don't pretend a lie is a not a lie. nt

[YOHABLO]

35. Gwen 'Awful'

[bucolic_frolic]

12. Is there a betting site for Trump refusing to debate?

I was surprised to read he had talked about it as I don't follow everything

but 'I'm the greatest ... you don't have a country with taco trucks on
both sides of my Great Wall ... ' is not going to cut it

Is he really going to deport the people who do the work in this country?

He's not going to deport tax cheats?

[tclambert]

13. No Jon Stewart? No Stephen Colbert? No Seth Meyers?

But they do have serious journalist from Fox News. I can just picture that third debate: "Question for you, Secretary Clinton: How can you justify your family's foundation accepting money from people seeking favors from the State Department while you were Secretary of State?" "Question for you, Mr. Trump: What's your favorite color . . . second to gold?"

[rdking647]

14. i wanted jon stewart

[Javaman]

17. I would love to have Samantha Bee.

if she ever runs for office, she has my support.

[left-of-center2012]

18. Chris Wallace, Anchor, Fox News Sunday

This is for the third and final debate, if Trump doesn't drop out.
It will give "The Donald" an opportunity to clean up all errors from the previous debates and to lie like Hell about Clinton,
leaving the audience the impression that Trump is the second coming of Christ,
and Clinton is the anti-Christ.

But, of course, Fox News is "Fair and Balanced".

[COLGATE4]

52. You are 100% correct.

[FairWinds]

19. How about Thom Hartman ?

Amy Goodman?

Dean Baker?

Ed Schultz?

As usual, ZERO progressives.

[MADem]

23. You'd go ballistic if they put Sean Hannity, Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh on the panels.

All of those people you name are way too far to the left to be credible to a national audience. And they'd set the right wing's teeth on edge just like the people I named, above, would do to us.

Their stock in trade is preaching to the choir. We've heard them--from their lips to America's ears--excoriating Republicans, often by name, in no uncertain terms.

With the exception of Chris Wallace, who is a Fox flogger only rarely shamed by the memory of his father, it's not a bad line up at all. HRC can handle them with aplomb.

[YOHABLO]

36. I'll take a Hannity with a Hartman or an Olberman

[YOHABLO]

37. but then Hannity works for FOX which is major corporate .. so not so much.

[MADem]

47. But they don't play from the fringes--they play from the middle and they ALWAYS have.

Why expect something that has never happened?

About the biggest left-leaning reporter who ever played in that milieu was Dan Rather--and even he had some "traditional" views prior to his "evolution" that people who are younger don't remember.

[FairWinds]

42. You mean go even more ballistic?

They've already had hosts from the Reich on the prior debates,
some at The Drumpf's insistence.

The point I was trying to make is that, while there is a very
substantial progressive population in the US, their views are
ignored in the debates, and in the corporate media in general.

Ed Schultz was even too radical for MSNBC - and now he's exiled
on RT.

Where is the MSM coverage of the negative side of the TPP?
Answer - It does not exist, in spite of very large popular opposition.

[MADem]

43. Ed Schultz was not "too radical." His ratings sucked. He was a cash drain.

Programming isn't free. You have to pay the talent, you have to pay the people who run the control room, who supervise the process, who operate the equipment, you have to pay the make up person, the wardrobe person, to say nothing of the carpenters who build/maintain the set and the bills (light, heat, property taxes, replacement equipment) that make up the overhead.

If you can send everyone home, turn off the lights, turn down the heat, and make three times the money selling a re-edited piece of programming about murder, or a show filmed by two guys with a camera in a prison, and only have the person sitting at the switch making sure the video doesn't get messed up to pay, you are looking at pretty much pure profit.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand this.

People talk a good fight, but they'd rather watch NETFLIX than Ed Schultz. If he'd been pulling in millions and millions of viewers, he'd be given a prime time slot on a free OTA network. But he didn't do that--he appealed to a niche audience, not a mainstream one. And that IS the truth.

As for the TPP, no one is covering it because it's dead in the water. What would you have them say about it? "Not happening?" "Senate leadership says no vote?" How many times would you like them to say that? Is three enough? Six too many? The media doesn't cover shit that "might" (or might not) happen next MONTH, never mind next year. If you're really upset about the lack of media coverage, pull up Google, type in TPP, and see how much the "media" has not covered this issue, telling us what the Senate plans on NOT doing for the remainder of the year.

It's a decent line up, these debate hosts. They're recognized, and save Wallace, they have reputations worthy of protecting.

[FairWinds]

49. I subscribe to the quaint notion . .

that the airwaves belong to the people, not the corporations,
and that they have a responsibility to educate, be fair (now THAT
is quaint), and not dumb down and/or Nazify the country.

And the MSM NEVER DID cover the TPP with any sort of balance.

Apparently, we disagree.

[MADem]

50. Well, that is a quaint notion.

Because "the people" aren't the ones funding those particular airwaves--the corporations are.

Some of the shittiest TV in the world is that which was exclusively "people funded." The BBC stunk until they got some competition. TV in the old USSR was such a joke that people knew the few shows they played by heart.

No one is forcing you to watch these networks, either--it's an implied contract when you do. They slap up the programming, the corporations buy ads, and they depend on EYES on SCREENS to make those ads generate revenue for them. your EYES on the screen is what determines if a show stays on or goes off. Not enough EYES on Schultz? He's toast.

When no one watches, they don't make money.

There's another way you can get content--you can pay, directly, for it. HBO, Showtime, STarz, etc. But one way or another, you're paying.


If you like public broadcasting, there's PBS (marginally funded with "public" money, and heavily funded by stinking rich people who absolutely have an agenda and they want you to hear about it)....but it's well seeded with Bush-era appointees, and it will take another eight years of a Democratic President to shake a lot of that shit out of the management upper tiers.


I have an understanding of the arguments against and for TPP--so I think the media has done an acceptable job of getting the word out. No, they haven't made it The Most Important Fucking Issue In the Whole Wide World, but that's because--surprise, surprise--there are a LOT of stupid people in the world, not just in America. They'd rather get "Kardashian News" than "TPP News." There is a market driven aspect to providing current events content--that's just reality.

Individuals have more options, but they have to take more responsibility in gathering that content they want. It's one reason why places like DU are valuable.

You can't force people to eat their vegetables or take exercise every day. You can't force people to consume "good for you" news or boutique TV shows like Schultz, either. Frankly, I agreed with the guy, but I found him boring as hell. If even those who agree with him find him rather One-Note, he wasn't going to have a prayer. I thought his venue was RADIO, actually--he's more interesting in the car.

[FairWinds]

66. What the corporate media feed us . .

bears almost zero resemblance to what the market "wants."

And in fact, as corps have seized control of all the major media,
they have increasingly destroyed the boundary that used to exist
between news and marketing.

Suggest you read some John McChesney

And check out this DU thread . . http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512396449

(And thanks for helping to keep this discussion civil)

[MADem]

67. I never get piqued! But I am a pragmatist.

As for what we're being fed, there is a way around that--just don't eat.

But the fact of the matter is, America does eat--they belly up to the trough and gorge themselves sick. The 'corporate media' are not engaged in charity--they are making money off the model they're pushing on us.

All this "cut the cable" stuff, with add-on boxes that suck up bandwidth that will, at the end of the day, give everyone the same content, only less of it, inconveniently, and sometimes an hour, a day, or even a year late--people cut the cable, go nuts, and put it back on..."Oh, just for (insert name of boutique channel)" but they're ordering the whole line-up. And clicking round the dial when they think no one notices!

MSNBC is talk radio with faces, half the time. So's Fux. It's just loudmouths with opinions--some of the opinions are agreeable, others not so much. One can pretty much be sure they're not going to find anything to like on Fux, unless they're "allowing" Kucinich or Colmes to get a word in edgewise. But that's how they play it--Team Sports. Fux is the Red Team, and MSNBC is the Blue Team, but includes everything from deeply conservative Democrats (who still exist and go to church and so forth, and disagree with specific aspects of the platform but prefer us to the other guys) all the way to the scolding liberal/purity testers on the other side of the field.


The only ones walking the walk on that score are the kids--and they're getting their "content" through their "devices." It will probably take a while before we figure out if they're eschewing information content completely, or relying on comedy shows exclusively, to sort it all out. When Jay Leno was on and he'd show a pic of the VP to people on the street on his "Jaywalking" skit, it was frightening how many of those clueless wonders had no idea who that was--and it wasn't just the VP, either. Troubling.

I think twitter is a wonderful feedback mechanism--see something you don't like? Hop on a "device" and excoriate the person you are shaking your fist at on the screen. Instant critique!

But I don't get mad at TV. It is what it is and it "owes" me nothing.

[Fast Walker 52]

21. not great, but it could be worse

[MADem]

22. This is gonna be FUN....

About the only one who will be totallly "in the tank" for Trumpie is Wallace, and by then he'll hopefully be on the ropes!

Martha Raddatz will be TOUGH--but someone who is prepared will not be at all flummoxed.

[Gabi Hayes]

33. I guess you missed it when she allowed giuliani to run roughshod over her

a few weeks back, while substituting for GS. one egregious example was when she sat there, unreactive, when he repeated the gigantic lie that "we ARE going to raise taxes," when it was proven that she actually said ''we AREN'T,'' resulting in a very sleazy ad on the subject, which got much more play than the clear disproving thereof. nothing in this campaign reminded me so much of the Swiftboat smear, and total media furtherance of that lie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028082779#post4

wait a minute.....I forgot about the email 'scandal,' the CGI non-story being beaten to death, the constant reference to her untrustworthiness, while not mentioning ONE WORD about the fact that Trump lies about three quarters of the time.

on and on and on. but back to Raddatz posing as a journalist....shameful bias/incompetence.....you be the judge....she lets him get away with every lie he tells!.....just goes on to another question without calling him on his BS:

how can they allow somebody from fricking FOX, and not somebody from MSNBC? what a crock

that so called dem on that bogus selection committee should be horsewhipped, along with the weak-kneed Hillary negotiators. they got owned bigly. they were the ones negotiating from strength, and they just caved pathetically.

[MADem]

46. If she got run over, she likely wasn't given time to prepare.

I don't normally watch GS, so of course I "missed" it.

It's not her job, FWIW, to be an advocate. It's her job to ask questions--if people want to lie, lies will be caught out.


That was a great question she asked, in your clip, quoting GINGRICH, too--and you think Toothy did well in his response? He sounded like a lip-licking dry-mouth flailer to me, throwing red meat to the base and convincing no one.

If you think Giuliani did well in that exchange, you've got some interesting perspective. He sounded like he was reciting the Litany of the Taints to me.

MR nailed RG on Trump's unfavorability, too--or did you miss that part, too?

[Gabi Hayes]

57. lighten up francis....we're on the same side, but I've seen enough of her FAILING

to ever counter wingnut lies (her MO is to let them ALL slide, then go on to the next question, as if everything they spew is gospel...did you miss all those parts, too?)

this is the exact problem with Cooper, Lester, and Raddatz, along with almost every MSM character actor. they rarely stop the conversation the way they should, to counter the never ending propaganda, being, for some reason, intent on reading off their list of mostly non-germane questions, while allowing the most outrageous calumnies to spread, unremarked upon

I know I generalize, but it's largely true. that's the better side, because the way they've spread the Hillary trust narrative is the worst, by far part, and you KNOW they're all going to hit her with that BS during the debates, as if it's 'common knowledge,' undebatable as the sun rising and falling on schedule

that's the problem I have with her and her ilk, cooper being included as among the most spineless

I hope you're right about raddatz, but when's the last time you saw a moderator ever challenge the serial lies they let the pubs get away with in any presidential debate (aside from the mild retort by Candy Crowley in 2012, and look how she disappeared after that disrespectful ''outburst&quot

[MADem]

59. It's not her job to be OUR advocate--any more than it's her job to be THEIR advocate.

Our side doesn't lie on TV. There's the difference.

If you hate it, call them out on it. Go on twitter or fb or other social media, and every time you see them lie, or misstate, or mis-characterize, tell them BULLSHIT. Get other people to agree with you.

Every time they say HRC can't be trusted, come back at them with "Eighty percent of Americans THINK YOU SUCK." If enough people do that, they'll listen, eventually.

Already, this concept that "Media is a bunch of assholes who are focusing on emails instead of the fact that Trump is a g.d. moron who is batshit crazy" is starting to gain currency.

It's building...but it's always best to not peak too soon.

My name is not 'francis,' fwiw, and I'm as light as a feather. I just am not naive, and I don't expect "the media" to carry my water for me.

As for Candy, she disappeared because she was retiring. It wasn't a surprise, it was planned for a while.

[.99center]

40. If Lester is anything like Matt and the rest of his past co-workers from the Today Show

This is going to be over by the second debate. I don't remember Lester ever correcting the rest of his co-workers when they were promoting Trump University, calling him divine, and doing everything possible to sell Trumps image on a daily basis. Even if you ignore the years of Trump ass kissing from Matt and the gang, does it really need to be pointed out how unethical it is to moderate a debate when you've guest starred on the candidates T.V. show?
How's that work anyways, do Matt and Lester receive a percentage of all future sales of Apprentice episodes they've appeared on? So yeah, if we can get through NBC's attempt to cash in on a WH Apprentice, and the smearing of Fox News at the end, maybe enough people will tone in during the mid debates, and maybe, just maybe, them shill's will do their job and simply question the Con and his "policies".

[hopeforchange2008]

41. Lester Holt's credibility went out the window when he hosted Dateline.

What a trash show that strives to turns crime into entertainment.

[MADem]

44. You do know that people who host DATELINE don't have a choice?

It's an assignment, like homework--part of the contract.

If he didn't do what they told him to do, he'd be FIRED. And someone else would get his job, and get his pay and assignments.

[hopeforchange2008]

54. So, he had a choice. He just chose to sell his soul.

[MADem]

55. Oh please--he was "the black guy" who got shoved to the back of the bus in favor of

Brian Williams--he should have been in FRONT of him, but he was the wrong flavor of the month.

Hosting a news magazine show, for which one is paid a decent salary while waiting one's "turn" to do anchor work, is not "selling one's soul." What a perverse claim--should he have taken unemployment or tried to find other work to make YOU (and only you) happy? Why does he have a responsibility to you to behave as YOU want him to? He does not owe you a damn thing.

Your hyperbolic approach to what is, at the end of the day, a J-O-B---not a religious calling--is just weird. Do you really think these people who read from the teleprompter are "special," somehow? They are just "news presenters"--they read, we listen. Information and opinion are imparted.

It's not church, it's the news. If you don't like him, lean forward, strain to pick up the remote, and punch the button--ahhhh, blessed relief!!!!

Save your soul-selling for Sunday morning!

[hopeforchange2008]

56. Wow! If the talking heads refuse to take a stand on what they are frontman for,

they deserve derision. I guess in your world it's any means to reach the desired end?

[MADem]

60. One More Time--it's a JOB. They don't "take a stand" --they report.

WTF is it that people think that, just because FAUX is a wingnut station, and MSNBC has "a few" liberal commentator shows, that people believe that someone who reads the news to us off a teleprompter is somehow required to "take a stand?"

It's a naive construct and not the way life works. What they are doing is a JOB--nothing more, nothing less. They aren't movie stars, superheroes, politicians, political groupies, or swoon-worthy icons. Anyone with good reading ability and vision suitable to see the letters on the screen so they can read the copy can do this "news presenter" job. It's not rocket science, and you'd do well to not turn them into Kardashian-like celebrities in your mind, who will take some sort of "stand" (preferably the "stand" that you agree with, I suppose) because one is as good or bad as the next.

I want my bus driver to drive the bus. I want my street sweeper to sweep the street. I want my grocer to keep the fresh fruit and vegetables available at a reasonable price. I want my news presenters to speak clearly and read the copy accurately and have enough smarts to be able to ask the right questions at the right time. I don't want any of these people to "take a stand." It's not their job to do that--if they did, they'd be advocates--and there's enough of that shit on Faux.

[hopeforchange2008]

61. It's that attitude that has given us the low information

news and voters that we have now. I'm not asking that any if them spout their views, but they can refrain from tacit endorsement of tripe television. If they take the money to front sensationalized crime entertainment, they aren't worthy of being a moderator for a presidential debate.

[MADem]

63. I'm astounded that you think my -- or anyone else's "attitude" -- holds such sway.

The employee does not "tell" the employer how to do their job.

If you don't understand that "commercial" television is all about a thing called "commerce," I can't help you.

It has been ever thus--there was no "golden age." It's just that, back in the day, people were less critical and ate the crap that was shoveled at them via the Magic Box. Nowadays, people are more critical.

[LisaM]

24. I would prefer a better balance of women and men

I could two women, three men as the main moderators for both debates, with a male backup. And no woman-only for the presidential.

I loved the debate during the primaries with two women moderators, but I guess it's hoping against hope to see that repeated.


I guess women's health issues will be on the back burner.

[MADem]

48. I agree with this point--it's a fair one.

This is the last gasp of the male-dominated media, I suspect. They'll get their last kicks in.

Would have been nice to have a little more ethnic diversity, too, but I guess Elaine is going to have to "hold up the side." Martha and Elaine will have to make sure the "women's issue" questions get asked--though Anderson Cooper is fairly sensitive in that regard, too.

If they add a woman moderator to the last debate, and do a co-host situation, that would be better and even it up.....

[martin mike]

25. Wallace's first questions:

to Clinton: "why did you order Vince Foster's murder?"
to Trump: "why are you so virile and manly?"

[COLGATE4]

53. Yep.

[cheyanne]

29. Is there any chance that moderators can call out lies???

So much of Trump has been debunked . . . it would seem only fair and balanced to make him stick to things like government numbers on unemployment, crime and jobs . . . How can you debate without some area of agreement?

[Auggie]

30. Hillary Clinton and team know what to expect now ... be sure to use that to best advantage

[Person 2713]

32. Thanks for the info

[YOHABLO]

39. Oh hell yeah, someone mentioned Amy Goodman up there. Juan Gonzales too.

[0rganism]

45. lame as the mod choices may seem, i wouldn't underestimate the temptation to go for a tRump gib

naturally it's all selections from our very extremely "fair and balanced" corporate media
but at this point, everyone who's not outright in the tank for tRump knows he's a volatile jerkoff who is unlikely to become the next POTUS
it might just be a point of professional honor and glory for the chosen flakes to push him to lose his temper during the debates -- good ratings, possible viral video if he really goes ballistic, bonus cred points for hitting him with a hard question or two

HRC will be unflappable as usual, very little benefit to trying to bait her, but DJT is another matter
between HRC's rebuts and a few tough questions DJT will have to up his game considerably
swatting him will be a high-reward low-risk proposition for the mods, who after all are at least nominally pursuing careers in journalism

[awoke_in_2003]

58. I miss the League of Women Voters. nt

[SunSeeker]

69. Me too. Sad that they got pushed out for corporate hacks. nt