After just watching the presidential debates tonight, I found an article pertaining to Candy Crowley as moderator. She is the first woman in twenty years to moderate a presidential debate. When interviewed, Crowley said, "My first thought was, 'What an incredible opportunity.' Being a female did not cross my mind. ... But I will love it if young women come away from the debate thinking, 'I can do anything.'"
However, "both the Obama and Romney campaigns have complained to the Commission on Presidential Debates about CNN's Candy Crowley" according to Jack Mirkinson of the Huffington Post. My initial reaction was, "Oh, it must be because she's a woman blah blah sexist blah blah" but that wasn't the case. It was because Crowley "publicly said that she intends to play an active role in the debate, rather than just let the audience at the town hall ask questions." Crowley was later called out by Time's Mark Halperin, saying that her role in the debate would be limited and not a leading role.
As I was personally watching the debates tonight, I feel like she did as much as an "active" moderator could have done. She was there to keep the order, keep things smooth, and to guide the candidates to other topics. But I really wasn't seeing much of that "active role" of hers going on. If I rematches the debates and looked and actually payed closer attention to her role in the program, I'd be able to spot out the times where she tried to become a participant. The only instances that stuck out at me was when she would try to interrupt the candidates and everyone would scream over each other. But overall I feel like she kept to a dim position but did her job well -- versus the first moderator who just did not know how to moderate.
No comments:
Post a Comment