It’s the voters’ loss when presidential debates become a media circus. The candidate-moderator feud that is prevailing the current political moment can be eliminated by an alternative debate format. John Donvan, co-author of ‘In a Different Key. The Story of Autism’ has spoken about it.
The Prevailing Mess:
The public because of their being politicized would blame the moderator thinking his decisions as biased if he talks against a candidate or points his flaws out. Suppose, if the moderator says to one candidate that he (candidate) was off point or and he was not responsive, everybody would think that the moderator was on the other person’s side but in reality he was just trying to protect the integrity of the debate. This kind of thing doesn’t happen in normal or Intelligence Squared Debates. The audience in this case understands and respects the moderator when he tries to make the debate better by pointing out the errors.
The Way It Should Be:
So it’s a very difficult situation for the speaker in the debate because it would be a bad decision not to interrupt and let the debate run off but it would also not be appreciated if they interrupt and moreover they would be blamed for taking sides. A proposal has been given to the Presidential Debate Commission that they do the debates in the right way or the Oxford-style way, having a stated motion. They will have to debate for and against the motion and they will let the moderator interrupt without taking it personally. They will not condemn it as taking sides. And may the best person win.