America wants a debate, not a spectacle — it’s up to the moderators to set the stage 

It won’t just be the candidates facing enormous pressure during Tuesday’s highly anticipated presidential debate; the moderators from ABC News, David Muir and Linsey Davis, will also be under the microscope. Muir and Davis must come through for America’s voters, making sure the presidential face-off is conducted with decorum, fairness and genuine substance. 

Televised debates have seldom changed the trajectory of primary or general elections. But the last one did. President Biden’s inept performance in June got him launched right off his party’s ticket. 

Tuesday’s showdown takes on particular significance since it might well be the only one between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.  

The vice president has much at stake, given that she has been media shy, to say the least, since grabbing the Democratic nomination from her deposed boss. She’s conducted no press conferences since becoming the nominee, and only one sit-down interview with a journalist, albeit a rather gentle conversation with CNN’s Dana Bash. But Harris won’t be able to hide when she is front and center on a debate stage, and she will have to work hard to overcome her tendency for strained, confusing and simplistic rhetoric. 

This debate has substantial risk for Trump as well. He must manage himself to avoid the mercurial and antagonistic verbal assaults for which he is well known. Veering off into personal attacks against a sitting, female vice president will be seen as boorish by a national television audience. 

The moderators, for their part, are also in a position in which they could impact the course of history. It would be best for Muir and Davis, however, if they were not the subject of conversation after the debate is completed. As with football referees and traffic cops, the best debate moderators are the ones who call no attention to themselves and are not remembered by the public. If the election turns in any way on this high-stakes debate, it should be as a result of what the candidates themselves do, not what the moderators do.  

ABC has already made one mistake by assigning two moderators to the debate when one would do just fine. The only reason for having two moderators, seemingly, is so that ABC can showcase two of their high-profile anchors. That is an insufficient justification for inserting another personality to take up time and focus away from the two people who might be president. 

Presumptuous as it might seem, the moderators could probably use some coaching in advance of the big debate night. Sadly, they can hardly prepare by reviewing “great moderator performances” over the years, because there have been so few since news veteran Jim Lehrer left the debate stage. Lehrer moderated 11 presidential debates over the years, from 1988 through 2012.

At all costs, the moderators must resist the urge to become pseudo-debaters. The second a moderator chastises a candidate, corrects them or asks a gotcha question, their credibility goes out the door and social media will light up with charges of bias. There is no need to rough up or fact-check Harris or Trump. That’s because the presidential opponents are right there on the stage, and presumably able to fact-check or scold each other. The moderators control the microphones, according to the debate rules, so there should be no need even for interrupting candidates. Moderators are there only to set the agenda for discussion, not to join the rhetorical fray. 

The moderators should keep their questions particularly brief and to the point. There is no need for long premises or big buildups. Debate viewers are informed and engaged enough to provide their own context, and candidates will surely put their own perspective on any topic. Moderators must maintain some humility here; the debate is not about them. Every second a moderator talks while trying to impress America with their great interrogation style is a second that candidates aren’t speaking.

Questions should be framed so that each candidate can sensibly answer and have the same level of challenge. For example, Harris should not be asked, “Why didn’t you tell the nation about Biden’s failing cognitive ability?” And Trump should not be asked, “Why are you in courtrooms so often?” Such attack questions might be fine in a press conference or interview, but debates should not be reduced to dueling pressers. Questions need to be framed so that neither candidate directly benefits.

Muir and Davis just have to keep the interactions focused on policy. There is no need for personality questions, puffery, or antagonism. Americans yearn for politics based on proposed solutions and policy assessment. While questions that prompt emotional sparks might be sensational, a polarized nation doesn’t need that right now.

Muir and Davis have a great opportunity to help raise the level of discourse, even if just for one evening. If the candidates can’t or won’t join a rational conversation, the blame should be on them, and not on moderators who didn’t rise to the occasion.

Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant.