Pixel Tracker

Tuesday, March 19 , 2019, 11:23 pm | A Few Clouds 50º

 
 
 
 

Peter Funt: As a Journalist, Lester Holt Stumbled Badly

Before taking his seat at Monday’s presidential debate, Lester Holt confided to the audience in the hall that his knees were shaking.

Ninety minutes later, shaky would be an overly kind way to describe Holt’s performance as moderator.

Putting aside any judgment of which candidate fared better, or how the event might affect voters’ opinions, Holt faced one of the most difficult tasks in modern journalism and came up short.

My analysis shows that Holt asked a total of 14 questions (plus a few interjections and short follow-ups). Of those, seven were generic, policy-based inquiries, asked of both candidates.

Six were specifically directed at Donald Trump, regarding things he has said and done. Only one such specific question — and a gentle one at that — was asked of Hillary Clinton.

Journalistically, that’s not even close to the standard trashed regularly by Fox News: Fair and balanced.

How the respected anchorman managed to fumble as he did is not particularly mysterious. Following sharp criticism of his NBC colleague Matt Lauer in the so-called “Commander-in-Chief” one-on-one, in which Lauer challenged Clinton repeatedly while allowing Trump to get away with distortions, Holt was determined to be different.

In the days leading up to the debate, several mainstream news organizations, most notably The New York Times, took bold steps in print and online to brand Trump’s most egregious statements “lies.” There was enormous pressure for Holt to do some form of the same.

If anything is clear in the relatively short history of televised presidential debates, it’s that neither the role of the moderator nor the format itself are settled science.

While the moderators — approved by both campaigns — are generally the best and the brightest, they are placed on an island.

“No one knows tonight’s questions other than Lester Holt,” the audience was assured in advance.

Maybe that’s asking too much.

Left to his own devices, Holt had to make several key structural decisions. Would the questions be generic and policy based? (How to create jobs, how to combat cyber attacks, etc.) Or, would they follow more of an interview style? (Why won’t you release your tax returns?)

Generic questions allow for full responses from both participants — the essence of a true debate.

Interview questions put one candidate on the defensive and prompt a more clipped back-and-forth with the moderator, which is what happened to Lauer as he sat just inches from each candidate.

The challenge for Holt was that Trump’s unprincipled and often distorted rhetoric over the course of the campaign practically screamed out for journalistic intervention. So Holt crafted his six direct shots — from Trump’s tax returns, to his “​birther” claims, all the way to his bizarre assertion that Clinton lacks the presidential “look.”

Deftly, perhaps overlooked by many, Holt slipped these questions into discussion of broader topics, making them seem more spontaneous. The generic tax question took Holt to Trump’s personal returns. The generic racial healing question led to the birther query.

But Trump’s supporters have reason to ask why no such interview questions were put to Clinton — about Benghazi, about the Clinton Foundation, or about her “basket of deplorables” remark, to name but a few.

The lone personal question asked of her by Holt was a softball, based on something she said recently: “Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people?”

Despite the pressure on Holt to push a few hot buttons, he would have been wiser to stick with basic policy issues and, for what would have been the first time in this tedious campaign, leave the tabloid questions to the cable shows.

Yes, Trump needs to be held accountable, and if Clinton had chosen to bring up his more outrageous comments, that would have been fair game.

The next event uses a “town hall” format, with two moderators, so it is likely that even more nonpolicy questions will come up, as an audience of carefully selected “undecided voters” gets to participate. Prospects for a real debate are dim.

Meanwhile, Monday’s show leaves Clinton’s supporters buoyed by her strong performance, Trump’s backers understandably miffed by the nature of the questions, and Holt still every bit the nice guy that his colleagues know him to be.

On the journalistic stage, regrettably, the nice guy finished last.

Peter Funt is a writer, speaker and author of the book, Cautiously Optimistic. He is syndicated by Cagle Cartoons and can be contacted at www.candidcamera.com. Click here for previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

Support Noozhawk Today!

Our professional journalists work tirelessly to report on local news so you can be more informed and engaged in your community. This quality, local reporting is free for you to read and share, but it's not free to produce.

You count on us to deliver timely, relevant local news, 24/7. Can we count on you to invest in our newsroom and help secure its future?

We provide special member benefits to show how much we appreciate your support.

Email
I would like give...
Great! You're joining as a Red-Tailed Hawk!
  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.