During the presidential debate on Monday night, it appeared as though Lester Holt refrained from asking the hard questions. He had a lot of room to control the course of the evening but oftentimes the candidates spoke over him or didn't answer his questions. Some are saying that him holding back helped us see the candidates characteristics since they were able to talk freely. Holt guided the discussion but seemed to be more lax of time restrictions and the direction that the debate headed. He asked direct questions to both candidates, though, and the questions seemed generally fair. Moderating a presidential debate is considered a very big deal for a journalist and it is up to (some more) debate to see whether Lester Holt did well or not.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lester Holt didn't moderate as well as he could have, especially keeping in mind that he continuously interrupted Hillary and wasn't called on his lack of respect for his opponent. He also could have fact checked more, but he was less biased than past moderators by a long shot. He should have been firmer, but at least he lacked bias.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Lester Holt moderated very well. He was too hands off and couldn't control the candidates. At times, 2 minutes turned into 4 minutes. I want to hear what they have to say, but at the same time there has to be some order. Furthermore, I didn't like that he refused to fact check the candidates except when he refuted Trump's Iraq War claim. Donald Trump is notorious for telling the most insane lies, with Politfact rating only 15% of his statements as true or mostly true. Hillary Clinton is also famous for her dishonesty, but doesn't lie as much as Trump. Holt should have intervened when they lied and grilled them on it. It is the only way to keep them from misinforming the public.
ReplyDeleteLester Holt didn't do as good of a job as he should have. He didn't control the conversation and was only able to interject a few times. However, he presented fair questions and gave equal opportunities to talk and wasn't biased. One fault of his was that he couldn't keep Trump and Clinton from jumping over the other when they were answering a question. The whole event was slightly chaotic which could have been avoided if Holt was more assertive with his role. Also, I agree with the view that he could have fact-checked during the event. It's hard to do, but calling the candidates on lies would've been very effective as citizens typically aren't going to pay attention to post-debate updates about the number of lies told.
ReplyDeleteLester Holt should have moderated more aggressively. He could have stepped in when Trump and Hillary were interrupting each other and dragging the debate out. In addition, he should have fact checked more and called out lies on both sides. However, he stated that his goal was to encourage conversation between the candidates. While the prevention of interruptions could have facilitated a more productive conversation, his passive role in the debate steered the debate away from a question-answer session. While I am glad he showed no bias, Holt should have been firmer in upholding decorum in the debate.
ReplyDeleteLester Holt should have moderated more aggressively. He could have stepped in when Trump and Hillary were interrupting each other and dragging the debate out. In addition, he should have fact checked more and called out lies on both sides. However, he stated that his goal was to encourage conversation between the candidates. While the prevention of interruptions could have facilitated a more productive conversation, his passive role in the debate steered the debate away from a question-answer session. While I am glad he showed no bias, Holt should have been firmer in upholding decorum in the debate.
ReplyDeleteAll things considered, Lester Holt did a pretty good job as moderator. The candidates did not exceed their relatively lax time limits too much, and he intervened when they did. I support his opinion that the moderator should not be too involved in the debate. It is, afterall, meant to be only between the candidates.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, I believe that the moderator should not intervene too much in debates. Open debate between the candidates reveals a lot to the audience about their personalities and how they react to pressure. However, this particular debate got pretty off track at times, and Lester Holt did not hold the candidates responsible for actually answering his questions. As a viewer, I had no interest in learning more about Mr. Trump's or Secretary Clinton's personalities. Lester Holt could have asked tougher questions involving Bill Clinton or Mr. Trump's recent flip-flopping on immigration. Overall, I really did not benefit from watching the debate. Hopefully the next moderator forces the candidates to tell us something we don't know.
ReplyDeleteLester Holt's restrained style of moderating allowed viewers at home to see sides of the candidates that wouldn't have come out in a more structured debate. Although it would have been nice if Holt had stepped in more often and shifted the discussion back to the original topic when it veered too far off the path, it was nice to see actual debate and back-and-forth between the two candidates. Even when Holt did start to take control of the conversation later on in the debate, he still stepped back far enough to allow the center of attention to be the candidates instead of himself. Whether Lester Holt's held back moderation was intentional or simply a reflection of his lack of control, it certainly made for a more lively and intriguing debate.
ReplyDeleteLester Holt's conserved style of moderating the debate had its benefits and its downfalls. A benefit that came with his lax style was that you were able to accurately see how Trump and Clinton reacted to each other, without being held back by Holt. However, a downfall to his conservative style was that at times the debate got off track and wasn't focused on what was important. In addition, after the canidates discovered that he was lax in moderating they began to interrupt each other, which caused issues in the candidates trying to get their points across.
ReplyDeleteI think that Lester Holt did a pretty good job moderating the debate. I enjoyed watching the candidates argue freely and even though there were maybe a few times where Holt could have calmed things down or been a bit more tough with the time limits, it was pretty interesting to see such a raw debate between those two. It really showed their personalities and how they handled being directly attacked. I also think that he asked some pretty good questions to them, and even though there are a few things that I wish he had adressed, there are still more debates!!! All in all, I liked the unbiased, lax style of Lester Holt moderating the debate.
ReplyDeleteLester's style of moderating the presidential debate had high points and low points. I personally thought that Lester could have been more assertive in cutting the candidates off because there were multiple cases where Trump was cut off but kept on talking. More could have gotten done if that wasn't the case. On the other hand, I believe that the questions he presented were a nice first batch for questions to start out the first debate because they weren't too specific and really gave people the chance to see what the candidates believe to be true in general issues.
ReplyDeleteThe last presidential debate was chaotic and Lester Holt did not moderate as well as he should have. The moderators job is to pose the questions, direct the debate, keep the time, and bring back focus if it veers off. Although he was unbiased throughout the debate, Holt did a poor job of keeping it on track. He couldn't control the candidates and every time he tried, it seemed as though they would talk over him. The moderator shouldn't be too involved in the debate, as it is meant for the candidates to freely discuss, however he should have control and it seemed as though Holt did not.
ReplyDeleteI do not think Lester Holt moderated the first presidential debate correctly. Although he gave the candidates enough space to express themselves as they saw fit, it was frustrating to watch certain things such as Trump consistency interrupting Hillary and Trumps lack of being specific in the points he was making to Lester's questions. I think it goes with out saying that these two candidates are more difficult to moderate than past candidates but to judge Lester completely on his moderating skills I believe we'd have to see more.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there was much criticism about how Lester Holt moderated the debate, I do not think it was as bad as everybody made it seem. Yes he could've done a little better of a job controlling some of the situations. But I have to say that I enjoyed listening to the candidates go back and forth at each other without any interruption. I think that by doing this, it gives the people a good view of how a candidate handles a certain situation and how well mannered they can be in a situation like this.
ReplyDeleteI think that the article brought up some valid points against his policy of noninterference. Though I did like the fact that allowed the candidates to show their speaking abilities unhindered. But he also allowed too much bickering between them which i think detracted from the over all quality of the debate.
ReplyDeleteThere are ups and downs of the way Lester moderated the first debate. His inability to stop the two candidates from going beyond their 2 minutes was a problem but I believe it gave us the opportunity to hear more of what they had to say. It depends on who you ask, I found it quite entertaining but very unprofessional, some may have gotten very annoyed. It gave Trumo that much more time to ramble about whatever he had to say... That should have been cut short minutes earlier. I'll cut Lester some slack, it was the first debate and I'm sure he knows what to do differently now in the future.
ReplyDeleteThis debate was, in my opinion, a tricky one to moderate. On one hand, the audience wanted to see the two candidates go back and forth with some degree of freedom. On the other hand, structure and guidance are needed to keep things moving and focused. Lester Holt certainly allowed the candidates to debate between themselves with a large degree of freedom. He tried to keep the debate organized towards the beginning, but as the night went on he seemed to become less present. I do not think that he did the best job as moderator, but there was an acknowledgeable amount of pressure on him to find the right balance between being involved and stepping back.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though Lester Holt purposefully let the candidates take control. The general public saw how Trump and Clinton handle dealing with opponents, a skill they will need as president. I can understand why people might get annoyed, but it seems as though the debate helped people get a better feel for what the candidates are like on a more personal level, which might be what Holt was trying to do.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Lester Holt did a pretty good job. I don't think he was too limiting in his questions, and I don't he was very biased either. He enforced the time restrictions when needed, and he pressed candidates when needed too. However, I'd like to see debates become more like debates, rather than just questions being posed to which politicians can respond with rehearsed points.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the moderator is responsible for making sure that each debate participant is given a chance to answer the prompted questions and is also responsible for making sure that the other participant is given a chance to voice a rebuttal. Lester Holt allowed for the candidates to argue with each other long after their time constraints and was not able to keep general order. While the two candidates talking over one another and their continuous interruptions does show something about their character, I believe that is not part of the debate. The debate is to get each candidate's views or replies on current issues. For that to properly happen, I believe that Lester Holt should have been more strict with the time constraints and not let the two candidates get off track.
ReplyDeleteOften, in a debate, the moderator has no need to be an active participant, other than occasional redirections of the conversation. However, during this specific debate Lester Holt should have played a more direct role in keeping Trump and Clinton in line. While to some extent it is important to see how the candidates deal with answering political opponents, these two were constantly going at each other's throats and crossing their time limits. In short, Lester Holt was not aggressive enough in imposing the rules on the candidates, but there was some merit in allowing them to fight it out.
ReplyDeleteI believe Lester Holt did a decent job with moderating the debate. Regardless of him not having any control over either of the two candidates, I actually think it is a good thing that he let the two candidates go at each other. Some may say Holt wasn't aggressive enough but I believe he was right to let Clinton and Trump fight it out so we viewers can see what each candidate is fighting for.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion on Lester Holt's performance is a mixed one at best. While it frustrated me at times to see him lack any control in the structure of the debate, his hands off approach (whether intentional or not) allowed viewers to get a better sense of the candidates by allowing them to complete their thoughts and show their personality to the audience. I would personally like more structure to such a debate, but I can respect why it happened, and the lack of bias shown towards either candidates as well. I was not satisfied by the fact checking, or the lack thereof, in the debate. I did not trust either candidate as a result of this, and this skewed my opinions as a result. But while Holt could have done better, he wasn't that bad either.
ReplyDelete