I'd like to see all TV debate shows release the rules for impartiality and moderating. I have a sneaking suspicion that Dimbleby on QT veers away from any set of rules now and again.
I'm surprised that there has not been more complaints about Adam Boulton's question to Nick Clegg..
"You were on the front of the Telegraph today weren't you?"
Surely that was bang out of order coming from the moderator of the debate.
Role of the moderator:
58. To moderate the programme
59. To keep the leaders to the agreed time limits
60. To ensure free-flowing debate being fair to all candidates over the
course of the programme.
61. To ensure fairness on the direction of the programme editor
62. To seek factual clarification where necessary
63. It is not the moderator’s role to criticise or comment on the leaders.
I can't quite remember the context without watching the debate through again, but the only excuse would have to be under rule 62..and from memory it didn't apply.
He was totally out of order imo and failed to remain impartial. And he certainly had no right to become part of the debate.:mad:
My God, if people are going to vote based solely on a leader's debating skills then we should all just go home....
My God, if you think one poster's opinion on how they saw the programme reflects how the rest of the voting population saw it then maybe it's just you who needs to go home.
While you're there you can then perhaps reflect on that superiority complex you appear to have because your method of deciding where you're putting that cross in the box has been carefully analysed, cross-referenced and spellchecked.
Comments
I agree.
Cameron got the easy ride I fully expected.
Sky should be banned from holding future elections debates.
The bias was not even subtle.
Absolutely! Could go down as one of the worst decisions of any general election, by a political party!
The Scottish leaders' debate and the Chancellors' debate were more natural and energetic, yet they still got their policies across.
He was totally out of order imo and failed to remain impartial. And he certainly had no right to become part of the debate.:mad:
My God, if people are going to vote based solely on a leader's debating skills then we should all just go home....
My God, if you think one poster's opinion on how they saw the programme reflects how the rest of the voting population saw it then maybe it's just you who needs to go home.
While you're there you can then perhaps reflect on that superiority complex you appear to have because your method of deciding where you're putting that cross in the box has been carefully analysed, cross-referenced and spellchecked.
Strewth!! :rolleyes:
My fondest memory of George Galloway was when he surprised most people and went to America and faced a Senate Commitee.
He was excellent in the way he owned them