In Defense of Jim Lehrer
Lehrer was trashed for his role as debate moderator; there's another side the story.
In Defense of Jim Lehrer
John Baer, Daily News Political Columnist
Jim Lehrer, moderator of last week's first presidential debate, was almost universally trashed for allowing the candidates, especially Mitt Romney, to control the pace of the encounter and for seeming to have no control of the event.
But the problem wasn't Lehrer. The format called for an open exchange to allow candidates to go at each other. Lehrer's role, by design (and by his nature throughout his career), was not to insert himself into arguments or questions but to offer topics for discussion.
He said as much after the debate and again on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Monday.
Part of the problem, I'm convinced, is that all of us have grown used to broadcast "journalists" yelling at guests and being more participants in issue discussions than observers who allow both sides to have their say.
Lehrer is old-school and correctly thinks moderators should moderate, not play along.
The problem in the first debate was that President Obama didn't play; he, not Lehrer, allowed Romney to run the show without challenge.
Lehrer is a classy guy, a respected journalist who began his career with newspapers in Texas. He's also a consumately fair interviewer who's won top broadcasting awards, including an Emmy and a Peabody.
(As a matter of full disclosure, I had the pleasure of working with Lehrer years ago on a national public TV project, have seen and talked with him since and so am a biased fan.)
But one thing this first debate did was get folks thinking of alternate formats.
Maybe we should have no moderator.
A friend in New Jersey suggests one of the "debates" be replaced with two editorial board sessions: Obama before the Wall Street Journal ed board taking questions for 45 minutes; Romney before the New York Times ed board doing the same.
Or just put the two on stage and let them go at it.
Both of these ideas are appealing. And either would put more pressure on the candidates than on any single moderator.
More excuses for Obama being totally unprepared to debate. I still like the Al Gore excuse of the Colorado thin air. You can't make this up.— BobbyD- republicans have their undies all a bunch because mitt was able to continuously talk with neither obama nor lerner choosing to interrupt him. what a leader. talks so no one can get a point in edgewise. obama should have interrupted but was waiting for lerner.
- I am pretty sure you have that wrong. The Dems are ones whining and blaming. For a example, see the comment below.
Lehrer was irrelevant. He lost the debate, not Obama.- Wake up your idol Obama was overmatched and not going to win this election. The community organizer will be back in Chicago. — frank123456
- It must really burn you republiCons to have to support this twit, who lies and pretends to be someone different for every audience. Even he can't keep his policies straight. He moved so far to the left during the debate that he'll probably vote for Obama too.
- It doesn't matter. It's all water under the bridge. The latest Electoral College map shows Obama 263, Romney 206.— CommonSense in Philly
- As long as us disenfranchised voters are out there voting at least twice, our cool President has nothing to worry about.— del ravio 100%
- Good luck getting the candidates to sit in front of hostile panels where they can't control their message. Of course this totally ignores third party candidates, who might surprisingly sway the election in a couple of key states.— meteo30
John is the author of the book "On The Front Lines of Pennsylvania Politics: Twenty-Five Years of Keystone Reporting" (The History Press, 2012). Reach John at baerj@phillynews.com.
