Sunday's Debate

The Texas Obeserver Blog contains a commentary written by Forrest Wilder, a freelance writer, concerning Sunday’s debate between Tom Craddick and his challenger, Bill Dingus. In this blog, http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/, Wilder makes the point that lobbyists with financial ties to a candidate to moderate a debate should be considered a scandal. The debate which was sponsored by AT&T had three panelists moderating. In the blog, Wilder discusses one of the moderators, Leslie Ward, an AT&T vice president and lobbyist. Wilder makes the point that while most corporations do indeed underwrite debates, they do not usually have one of their lobbyists as a moderator. He uses a few quotes and gives examples of endorsements given to the party to illustrate his point. Furthermore, Wilder states that Ward asks a question in the debate that Craddick could easily answer, thus showing lack of objectivity. During the debate, it was also noted that Ward became a little defensive with the Midland newspaper. I agree with Wilder’s argument. The point of a moderator in a debate is to be fair and objective. However, how can one serve this purpose if they have financial ties or are affiliated with the party they are endorsing? There are doctors who won’t treat patients that they know and will refer them to one of their colleagues or sometimes teachers who would rather not have their kids in their classrooms because of the position they may be put in. I think that moderators should use this same standard of thinking when choosing to participate in a debate.