Maybe all they need is a round table

I hate Tom Brokaw and so should everyone in the US. Mr. Brokaw did the American people a huge disservice during his moderating of the most recent Presidential Nominee Debates. The role of a moderator is to control the speakers of a debate so that one is not heard exclusively over the others. It is NOT however to squash the actual debate among representatives, as Mr. Brokaw so aptly did. If there is one thing that Saturday Night Live's odd mid-week and misplaced 30 minute indulgence in good ratings did well last Thursday was point out the foibles of debates in which time was simply not of the essence, but the entire content of the discussion.

Mr. Brokaw's rod-up-the-you-know-where-sports-referee approach to moderation was far from refreshing. If anything it did a lot to stifle, mislead and distract the American public from the real issues of the day. Unlike, prior moderator, Jim Lehrer's continued insistence that the candidates should NOT in fact speak to him BUT to each other, Mr. Brokaw's approach led to one of the most dry discussions in the history of television. Dry discussion isn't exactly what is called for at the moment.

Contrast this with the Canadian Federal Election debates among the leaders of the large parties. There are some big differences. First of all the "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality is depleted through the varied opinion that not two but five leaders bring to a debate. The nuance in opinion, idea and discussion that must take place in an environment in which a variety of parties participate make topics far wider and varied than the US debate will allow.

This environment of discussion is not just a problem with this debate season in the US, it is systemic as Katherine Hall Jamieson has been want to make a career of pointing out. The narrowness of opinion usually expressed in debate situations in the US leaves much of the American public unable or unwilling to vocally and expressly discuss their own politics and opinions, much less their leaders and parties.

The Canadian leaders DO talk to (and at) one another. The moderator makes sure they get a chance to talk but doesn't unnecessarily limit or reduce conversation. The issues are clear. The opinions of the leaders is clear. Canadian leaders discuss and debate issues openly. The topics of debate too go far beyond the mind numbing "What are you going to do about the economy?" (how does anyone answer that in 1 minute), to specifics about environmental policy and the economy, trade and taxes. It's a much more robust conversation than is allowed to take place in the US.

And the conversation therefore elevated.

And that's what the US presidential debates need - elevated conversations. The onus of which usually falls to the moderator to introduce new, interesting and important topics, not to constantly say "One minute - these were the rules the parties agreed to in discussions.'

In other words, American Presidential debates NEED discussion to succeed - and it must usually be injected in by third parties.

Either that or a round table.