Jim Lehrer Responds To His Debate Moderation Critics: I Was 'Effective'

» 6 comments

In an exclusive interview with POLITICO's Dylan Byers, Jim Lehrer responded to the criticism of his performance as moderator in Wednesday night's first presidential debate. The PBS vet told Byers he believes he sufficiently fulfilled his duty as moderator and that the widespread criticism does not bother him much.

'Based on what the goal was, I saw it as successful,' said Lehrer. 'I've always said this and finally I had a chance to demonstrate it: The moderator should be seen little and heard even less. It is up to the candidates to ask the follow-up questions and challenge one another.'

Politicians and pundits from all over the map gave Lehrer low marks for his performance. Fox's Chris Wallace and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow both seemed to agree that he failed to 'control' the debate. We here at Mediaite panned his performance and compared his behavior to Milton from Office Space meekly demanding the return of his red stapler.

But Lehrer told Byers that he felt his less confrontational approach was appropriate: 'I don't consider that being passive, I consider it being effective,' he said, adding that because the new debate format features each candidates getting two minutes to answer a question and eleven additional minutes for debate, the moderator is expected to play a less active role.

'The goal of the new format was to have the candidates talk directly to one another, in an extensive way, about things that matter,' he told POLITICO. 'One of the problems is that everybody is used to the old-fashioned debate system, which is very controlled, and where the moderator plays a more active role. But from the very beginning, everybody has been saying that what we really want is to have a real debate, not to have a moderator conducting a pseudo-interview.'

The veteran journalist also indicated he is unconcerned with the harsh criticism: 'I've heard some of the criticism, but it's not keeeping me awake at night,' he said.

Read the full interview here at POLITICO.

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

• I agree he did well, I didn't pick up a single gotcha or TMZ question like we typically see from CNN/NBC/ABC. Debates are supposed to be an opportunity for the candidates to speak and respond, not for the moderator to dominate and control. They each got equal opportunity and both behaved like the gentlemen they are. Obama wasn't as energetic or convincing as Romney, but that's his performance issue, he may be perfectly fine the next debate. Mitt has also had occasional bad debate performances. It happens.

• Without knowing the content of the deal both campaign signed, it is hard for me to criticize this guy.
  Remember the Campaigns signed some secret deals regarding the debate'.The American people are nto privy to that one' we should demand to see it

• I agree with Jim Lehrer. He was effective.
  'It is up to the candidates to ask the follow-up questions and challenge one another.'

• Yes, Jim. You were effectively neutralized as an advocate for voters.

• What you're describing is the debate's format, which I have no trouble with. But as a moderator, he was pretty useless, asking the vaguest of questions. And that plays well to a candidate whose whole strategy is to be vague and unspecific, but that's not a benefit to the voter.

  (The rest of your analysis is about right.)

• i do not blame leher for obama's poor performance but that does not mean there were two failures that night. leher was absolutely steamrolled and now seems to be in denial. what ever his ideas on the presence of a moderator, ultimately the moderator should enforce the rules he has set forth. if the moderator is unable enforce strict adherence to the format, it is a fundamental failure on his part. it mattered not if the candidates had worthy follow up questions because the exceptionally poor moderation obliterated any effective way for them to be asked or answered. this was jim leher's 'eastwood moment.' he should own.