Thursday, June 13, 2024

Presidential debate should be done without moderators

June 13th email to Alabama TV stations
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: shannon.isbell@wbrc.com <shannon.isbell@wbrc.com>; Susana Schuler <susana.schuler@hearst.com>; brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com <brendan.kirby@fox10tv.com>; jama.killingsworth@waff.com <jama.killingsworth@waff.com>; Mike Wright <mwright@waaytv.com>; Kay Norred <knorred@wvua23.com>; rmartin@cbs42.com <rmartin@cbs42.com>; Baylor Long <blong@hearst.com>; dwingard@wsfa.com <dwingard@wsfa.com>; news@mynbc15.com <news@mynbc15.com>; Randy.Merrow@fox10tv.com <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; "randy.merrow@fox10tv.com" <randy.merrow@fox10tv.com>; gmcdonald@waka.com <gmcdonald@waka.com>; mscarano@sbgtv.com <mscarano@sbgtv.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 at 06:58:39 PM CDT
Subject: Presidential debate should be done without moderators
For what it's worth I wish to suggest to Alabama TV stations that the Presidential debate would be better done without moderators.
Consider how a format without debate moderators would work.
For the 90 minute debate, Trump and Biden would take turns speaking, for say 3 minutes, and be free to say whatever the candidates choose.
The microphone of the candidate who is not speaking would be off, and the speaker's microphone would be turned off at the end of his three minutes.
In this format each candidate would have the opportunity to tell the American people, in a personal and direct way, why the American people should want him to be President in preference to the other candidate.
The format of no moderators would allow each candidate, in choosing what to speak about, to reveal to the American people what the candidate thinks is important to the American people, and to say what he has done (or not done) and he will do (or will not do) if he is elected President, regarding those important things. The American people would then judge for themselves what a candidate thinks is important to the American people and what the candidate says about those important things.
In this format, each candidate would be free to comment on anything that the other candidate says and be free to criticize or ask questions of the other candidate. That other candidate, during his speaking time, may respond or not respond to such comments, criticism and questions, all as that other candidate chooses, The American people would judge for themselves what they think about the comments, criticism and questions that are posed by one candidate to the other candidate and about the response or non-response by that other candidate.
In the format, each candidate would be free to make such assertions of fact as he chooses. These assertions would be subject to the other candidate agreeing with or contradicting, or not saying anything about, such assertions of fact, as the other candidate chooses. The American people would judge for themselves whether they think asserted facts are important to them or not and judge for themselves their interest in knowing the truth or falsity of asserted facts that they consider important, and, after the debate, make such efforts as they choose to learn about such truth or falsity.
After the debate, the media would spend much time investigating, determining and commenting on the truth or falsity of the factual assertions that the candidates make in the debate, and this would help the American people who are interested in such truth or falsity to satisfy themselves about such truth or falsity.
It is submitted that not having debate moderators is superior to having debate moderators for helping the American people decide which candidate they prefer to be President of the United States.
If Alabama TV stations think this is good idea that the Presidential debate should be done without debate moderators, I hope the TV stations will pass the idea on to their national networks and others who might have influence about the debate format.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook
[for filing in Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Presidential debate should be done without moderators (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com)]

Email question for moderator Jake Tapper, Dartmouth class of 1991
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
Cc: Robert B. Coates <robert.b.coates@dartmouth.edu>; Linda L. Fowler <linda.l.fowler@dartmouth.edu>; Jeff Carton <jcarton@denleacarton.com>; Neal K. Katyal <neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com>; cborton@maynardnexsen.com <cborton@maynardnexsen.com>; ddowd@burr.com <ddowd@burr.com>; President Sian Leah Beilock <president's.office@dartmouth.edu>; editor@dartreview.com <editor@dartreview.com>; editor@thedartmouth.com <editor@thedartmouth.com>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 at 11:10:38 AM CDT
Subject: A question for Jake Tapper, Dartmouth '91
Dear Jake,
I think the Presidential debate would be better if there were no moderators.
I am trying to make the case for this at Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Presidential debate should be done without moderators (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com).
I hope you might consider this suggestion.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Dartmouth '69
[If anyone seeing this email is in a position to forward the email to Jake Tapper, that would be wonderful.]

Email to Alabama political news reporters
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: kwhitmire@al.com <kwhitmire@al.com>; Jon Anderson <janderson@starnesmedia.com>; bbritt@alreporter.com <bbritt@alreporter.com>; Dale Jackson <dale@yellowhammernews.com>; Brian Lyman <blyman@alabamareflector.com>; yaffee@yellowhammernews.com <yaffee@yellowhammernews.com>; csmith@al.com <csmith@al.com>; jsharp@al.com <jsharp@al.com>
Cc: jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 at 04:55:57 PM CDT
Subject: FWIW, I think Presidential debate should be done without moderators
FWIW, I am trying to make the case that the Presidential debate should be done without moderators. Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Presidential debate should be done without moderators (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com).
FWIW, i have suggested that to Alabama TV stations and for them to pass the idea on to their national networks and others who might have influence about the debate format.
FWIW, I have emailed Dartmouth contacts urging, if they are in a position to get the idea to debate moderator Jake Tapper, Dartmouth class of 1991, to do so.
FWIW, I am sending you this email about this.
FWIW. From a Facebook commenter:
I’m not a fan of your proposal. I think it would end up being a platform for the candidates to spurt out their topics/ideas, with little or no challenge to their rhetoric. Such information can easily be relayed via their websites or TV ads. It’s called a “Debate” for a reason – to exchange information and challenge each other’s positions.
About debates, there’s plenty of evidence that moderators are biased. If it’s mainstream media doing the moderating (and this upcoming one is), it would be fairer if they have something like an ombudsman to keep them honest and on track. The profession of journalism has violated their own true purpose – to do true, honest and unbiased reporting. It’s obvious to any news junkie that the left-leaning news reporters (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc.) weed out or slant many stories/reports/events that may reflect poorly upon the democrat party or individuals. And they choose to avoid or bury many topics/stories that would shed a positive light on the Republican party.
I’ve been a long-time proponent of turning off the mics for those not speaking at the debates. As that’s to be tested in the debate this month, let’s see how it works out. I’m not optimistic.

Response to above Facebook comment [DRAFT]
The American people, practically wherever they turn, are bombarded by candidates, their surrogates and biased news reporting and commentators, spewing out the candidates' 'topics/ideas, with little or no challenge to their rhetoric."
This is exacerbated by millions of the American people wanting to hear, and in fact hearing, only one side's spewing of such "topics/ideas with little or no challenge to their rhetoric."
One of the rationales for a "no moderator" debate is to avail of the "debate" being one time when all of the American people who watch to at least be exposed at the same time to both sides spewing of their "topics/ideas" (to the extent it takes place in an unmoderated "debate").
In such debate, the candidates will be confronted with an audience in which there are millions of voters who are not the candidate's supporters and whether to moderate the candidate's "spewing of topics/ideas," in order for the candidate to try to gain voters for the election. This by itself should curtail the "spewing" to some extent.
Beyond that curtailment, there is the question of how well the candidate's "rhetoric" will be "challenged" in a moderated debate versus an unmoderated debate.
In an unmoderated debate, each candidate will be free, during his speaking times, to challenge the other candidate's rhetoric as much as the first candidate desires.
In a moderated debate, the moderators can be expected to challenge a candidate's rhetoric in the debate.
I think the American people will be better served leaving it to the candidates to challenge each other's rhetoric.
Challenging of a candidate's "rhetoric" in a moderated debate by moderators is subject to the infirmity mentioned by the above Facebook comment that the moderators are biased, or that millions in the audience will think the moderators are biased, and the "challenging" done by the moderators will be disregarded by those millions in the audience.
In the unmoderated debate, there is a question of whether the challenging that is done by one candidate of the other candidate's rhetoric will have more effect on supporters of the latter than challenging that is done by moderators who are viewed as biased. I think challenging done by one candidate of the other candidate has more potential for consideration by supporters of the latter, than challenging done by moderators who are viewed as biased.
Further, challenging done by one candidate of the other candidate is itself revelatory about the first candidate's understanding of the matter at hand, that is useful to a viewer in evaluating the candidate, and the viewer is likely to give more attention and thought to what the viewer is hearing, compared to challenging done by a moderator that lacks this informative aspect about the candidate doing the challenging.
The foregoing comment can be generalized. What the candidates choose to talk about is itself informative to viewers about the candidates, in a way that moderators deciding what the candidates shall talk about lacks that informative aspect. By the same token, how much time candidates choose to spend talking about particular topics is informative to viewers about the candidates regarding such topics, and time limits on answers and rebuttals that are imposed by moderators deprives viewers of this informative aspect.
Overall, an unmoderated debate bespeaks "let each candidate choose how he thinks is best to try to persuade the American people that he rather than the other candidate should be President,, let each candidate speak directly and personally to the American people without interference by moderators, and let the American people judge for themselves and make up their own minds about what they hear directly and personally from the candidates in the debate untainted by moderators injecting anything into the debate.
Finally, I offer my view that, if the debate is a moderated debate, the candidates can be expected to avoid making reasonably responsive answers to questions the moderators ask and instead will answer the questions in unsatisfactory ways. 
[DRAFT, SUBJECT TO REVISION] 

Another Facebook commenter
Another Facebook commenter said, "Moderators ask questions on subjects the candidates want to avoid." In an unmoderated format, in the 90 minutes of the debate, I think it can be expected that one candidate or the other will bring up the issues that are important to the American people and moderators are not needed to bring up issues. As to each issue that is brought up, I think the American people can think for themselves about what the candidates say and ask each other about issues and don't need moderators to ask questions.

How Jake Tapper and Dana Bash should introduce "unmoderated" debate [DRAFT]
Good evening.
We hope this presidential debate has the largest audience ever for a presidential debate.
CNN and we have decided that the American people will be best served by this debate if the two of us do not ask any questions and we leave it up to the candidates to say whatever they want.
For the next 90 minutes, the candidates will take turns speaking for 5 minutes. During each 5 minutes, the microphone of only the speaking candidate will be turned on and only he will be shown on the TV screen.
The speaking candidate's microphone will be turned off exactly at the end of his 5 minutes, even if he is in mid-sentence.
The candidates are under strict rules to stay at their respective podiums and, while it is the turn of the other candidate to speak, not to make any sounds or gestures that would be distractive to the speaking candidate.
A speaking candidate may address comments to or ask questions of the other candidate, and the other candidate may respond to such comments or questions during the other candidate's speaking times and not while the first candidate is speaking.
The candidate who will go first has been determined by a flip of a coin, and it is [President Biden] [Former President Trump].
[President Biden] [Former President Trump], please go ahead. You have 5 minutes speaking time.
[END OF DRAFT]
Follow up of above post on "X'"
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: todd@aldailynews.com <todd@aldailynews.com>
Cc: Neal K. Katyal <neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com>; jvance@law.ua.edu <jvance@law.ua.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 05:05:05 PM CDT
Subject: Following up to Margaret Hoover & you re Presidential debate being done without moderators
Todd,
This email follows up my post on "X" yesterday to Margaret Hoover and yourself, asking whether the American people would be better served if the CNN Presidential debate was done in an unmoderated format, compared to a moderated format.
Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Presidential debate should be done without moderators (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com) tries to argue for an unmoderated format (subject to strict rules that are indicated in the foregoing link).
I am very interested in getting the idea passed on to Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
Both Margaret Hoover and her husband John Avlon are contributors to CNN and, if they are persuaded by the idea of an unmoderated debate, they should be able to pass the idea to Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. I don't have an email address for Margaret Hoover to use to follow up my post to her on "X" yesterday, so this email is not being sent to her.
I am copying Neal Katyal and Joyce Vance on this email because I have previously emailed them about the debate being unmoderated, and because, if they are persuaded by the idea, they are in a good position to reach out to Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
If anyone believes that an unmoderated debate would not better serve the interests of the American people, compared to a moderated debate, I would be very interested in learning the reasons for such belief.
Thank you for reading this email.
Rob Shattuck___________
[I received an automated reply from Neal Katyal's email address, saying Neal was in Japan until June 23rd and giving a name to contact if matter "urgent." I forwarded my email to the named person.] 

Email I sent to a friend
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 06:33:53 PM CDT
Subject: Fw: Following up to Margaret Hoover & you re Presidential debate being done without moderators
[first name of friend],
Below is an email I just sent to Todd Stacy, who is the host of Capitol Journal | June 14, 2024 (aptv.org).
I just see it this way:
Take any question Jake Tapper and Dana Bash ask of Trump.
Take, for example, "You say the 2020 election was rigged/stolen from you. [Jake or Dana recounts court challenges, etc.] Don't you accept those?" Trump: "No, everyone knows our court system is totally corrupt and rigged., etc." Jake or Dana tries to argue the point with Trump. Trump just lays on more bombast.
Or do you think Trump, in answering the question, is going to back off from the bombast he spews at his rallies, and his rally goers hear in the debate something different from what Trump tells them at his rallies?
Run through other questions Jake and Dana may choose to ask, and tell me Trump doesn't run over Jake and Dana, and then backs up and runs over them again.
Jake and Dana just need to pull in their heads and let Biden and Trump have at it in front of the American people, and let the American people decide for themselves who they want for President.
Rob
Email to Alabama GOP and Democratic party organizations
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: john@algop.org <john@algop.org>; contact@algop.org <contact@algop.org>; contact@aldemocrats.org <contact@aldemocrats.org>; pfoster@algop.org <pfoster@algop.org>; houstoncountydems@gmail.com <houstoncountydems@gmail.com>; chair@baldwindemocrats.org <chair@baldwindemocrats.org>; info@chiltoncountydems.org <info@chiltoncountydems.org>; chair@limestonedemocrats.org <chair@limestonedemocrats.org>; greaterbhamyrs@gmail.com <greaterbhamyrs@gmail.com>; aucollegerepublicans@gmail.com <aucollegerepublicans@gmail.com>; info@mobilegop.com <info@mobilegop.com>; crfachairman@gmail.com <crfachairman@gmail.com>; lawrencealgop@yahoo.com <lawrencealgop@yahoo.com>; lcgop@limestonegop.org <lcgop@limestonegop.org>; tuscaloosagop@yahoo.com <tuscaloosagop@yahoo.com>; Info@mcyrs.com <info@mcyrs.com>; chair.jeffersoncountydems@gmail.com <chair.jeffersoncountydems@gmail.com>; chair@mobiledems.org <chair@mobiledems.org>; shelbycountydems65@gmail.com <shelbycountydems65@gmail.com>; cleburnealdemocrats@gmail.com <cleburnealdemocrats@gmail.com>; tuscaloosadems@gmail.com <tuscaloosadems@gmail.com>; autaugagop@gmail.com <autaugagop@gmail.com>; aprilweaver@att.net <aprilweaver@att.net>; jeandanderson@att.net <jeandanderson@att.net>; president@republicanwomenofhuntsville.com <president@republicanwomenofhuntsville.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 05:23:18 PM CDT
Subject: American people would be better served if Presidential debate was done without moderators
Dear Alabama GOP and Democratic party organizations,
I think CNN's Presidential debate next Thursday would better serve the interests of the American people if it was done in an unmoderated format, compared to a moderated format.
If this idea interests you, please read Be An Alabama Rootstriker* with Rob Shattuck: Presidential debate should be done without moderators (al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com).
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck
Mountain Brook
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)