In debate between Clinton, Trump, moderators will be judged, too

With the highly anticipated first U.S. presidential debate set for Monday night, veteranjournalistJimLehrer, a seasoned moderator of such contests,is just as happy to sit this one out.

"Oh no, heavens no," he says, when asked if he regrets not participating in the long-awaited political dust-up between DemocratHillary Clinton and RepublicanDonald Trump.

But, then, in mid-sentence, he reconsiders.

"Having done as many as I have donefor the most part being exhilarated by the experienceit's hard not to say 'Well, you know I could do this, it might be really interesting.'But 60 to 70 per cent of me I'm just delighted I don't have to do it."

Instead, the honours will fall toNBC News anchorLester Holt, whowill host the first debate atHofstra University in Hempstead;N.Y., CNN'sAnderson Cooper andABC News' MarthaRaddatzwhowill moderate the second contest and Fox News' Chris Wallace, who will preside over the third.

• U.S. election primer: The presidential debates
• Trump's jabs, Clinton's upraised palms could reveal who has upper hand
• Facebook, Twitter test ability to engage voters with role indebates

As much asthe focus will be on the candidates, attention will be drawn to the performance of themoderator. While this is certainly one of the mostprestigious gigsa journalist can snag, it can beone of the most thankless jobs.

"There is no way you can do them without being criticized," said Lehrer, who has moderated 12 presidential debates. "So if you don't want to be criticized, don't be a moderator."

Lehrerhas felt the sting from critics, andwas slammed by some for losing control of thefirst debate betweenPresidentBarackObama andformer Massachusetts governor MittRomney in 2012.But as Lehrer sees it, most of that criticism came from supporters of Obama, who was widely viewed as having lost that matchup.

"If your candidate does poorly in a debate, you don't blame your candidate. You've got to blame somebody. You don't blame the opponent necessarily, unless you've got some kind of fairness issue. Blame the moderator."

Alreadythe role of the moderator in thesedebates has come undermore intense scrutiny than usual, in partdue tothe controversial performance of NBC Today show host MattLauer at a national security forum in New York this month.Lauerinterviewed Trump and Clinton separately, but was slammed for not fact-checking the real-estate mogul.

ButWallace has already served notice, andreceived some backlash, fordeclaringhe would not be fact-checking because it'snot his"job to be a truth squad."

Lehrer saysthe candidates should fact-check each other.

Alan Schroeder,a Northeastern University journalism professor and author ofPresidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail, said adebate is not the ideal forum to begin on-the-spot fact-checking. Itcould create problems.

Many Republicans cried foul, for example,whenCNN's Candy Crowley seemed to take the side ofthe president against Romneyregarding afactrelated to theBenghazi embassy attack.

"There's an exampleof a moderator trying to do real-time fact-checking and kind of had it backfire on her," Schroeder said."Not that she was necessarily wrong in what she said, but that it was a really nuanced and complicated thing."

There are othersjournalists, political observers, fact-checking websites who arewatching the event and aremuch better suited for that role, he said.

Not a protagonist

A moderator is not aprotagonist in the debate butafacilitator of the dialogue between the candidates, Schroeder said.

"The debate ultimately has to be about the candidates and so, you know, this question of how activist moderators should be in a debate it really is not an interview."

Lehrersaid the role is much more than just keeping time, it's making sure the debate isfair, that the candidates are talking about the same subject and are following the rules of the game.

Debatewatchersdon't understand that it's not the same job as an interviewer, which is one of the reasons they complain that moderators "didn't follow up on this, didn't challenge this, or, you cut somebody off too soon, or you let somebody go on," he said.

"Peoplewatch these through the prism of their own beliefs and through their own partisan viewpoints."

Do homework and listen

Lehreradvisesmoderators todo their homework andlisten. "Discern whether or not the answer you just heard is worth following up on, and if so, how and is it relevant. Isthere something you should call up the opponent to challenge?"

Also, moderators should study upon the candidates.

"You want to start as on top of things as you possibly can. It's about content in terms of what they believe, in positions they've taken and what proposals they've made, but it's also about them as individuals."

And if a candidate won't answer a question? There's only so much a moderator can do, Lehrer said. Highlight the fact that the candidate didn't answer, repeat the question, but thendecide whether the point has been made.

"Everybody now knows theydidn't answer this question.Move on.I don't have to declare it, theydidn't answer the question. Forget it. The public canfigure that out."