Presidential debates can be pivotal in any election cycle, offering voters a direct comparison of the candidates' policies, personalities, and competencies.

However, the role of the debate moderator is equally crucial, as their questions and demeanor can shape the discourse. When moderators exhibit partisan biases, the integrity of these debates can be significantly compromised.

Although I do not believe there will be a debate between President Biden and former President Trump, even under the apparent bias of CNN, a partisan media platform, and its partisan moderators, CNN Anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, and even with the restrictive rules of no audience, strict time controls, and microphone mute switching, I caution everybody about progressive communist democrat gaslighting.

Even if such a debate were to occur, let us beware of the influence of biased partisan moderators on presidential debates.

Shaping Perceptions through Questions

Moderators are tasked with posing challenging yet fair questions to each candidate. A biased moderator may frame questions in ways that either favor or disadvantage a candidate, consciously or unconsciously steering the debate. For example, a moderator with a known partisan lean might ask leading questions that highlight the strengths of one candidate while focusing on the controversies surrounding another. Or a biased moderator may fail to ask pertinent follow-up questions based on a participant’s answer. This can skew public perception, making one candidate appear more competent or trustworthy than the other.

Influencing Debate Dynamics

The way moderators handle interruptions and rule enforcement also plays a critical role. A partisan moderator might allow one candidate more leeway to interrupt or speak over their opponent, thereby dominating the conversation and appearing more assertive. Conversely, if a moderator frequently cuts off or challenges a specific candidate, it can create an impression of weakness or lack of control. Such dynamics can significantly influence viewers' perceptions of the candidates’ abilities to lead and manage conflict.

Introducing Real-Time Fact Checking

While real-time fact-checking during presidential debates can become a crucial tool for holding candidates accountable for their statements, we have seen evidence of biased fact-checkers from various partisan organizations scrutinize claims, ostensibly to ensure accuracy and provide context, introducing errors and propaganda into the debate. Suspicious partisan sources such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and NPR have been proven to be disingenuous and dishonest.

Far from helping voters discern truth from misinformation during high-stakes political debates, these organizations further muddy the waters with their misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.

• Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is spread without the intent to deceive. It is often the result of mistakes, misunderstandings, or rumors.
• Disinformation is deliberately false information spread with the intention to deceive or mislead. It is often used to manipulate public opinion or obscure the truth.
• Malinformation involves the sharing of true information with the intent to cause harm. This can include private or sensitive information that is disclosed to damage a person's reputation or create a negative outcome.

Impact on Voter Trust

When voters detect bias in the moderation of debates, it can erode trust in the electoral process. The perception of unfairness can lead to disillusionment and skepticism about the legitimacy of the debates and, by extension, the candidates themselves. This distrust can lower voter turnout and increase political polarization, as individuals may feel that the system is rigged against their preferred candidate.

Bottom line…

Regardless of the debate rules, the influence of biased partisan moderators on presidential debates is profound and cannot be overlooked. This applies to moderators of all platforms, whether CNN or FOXNEWS.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve