Impartial presidential debates are needed this fall

With less than 90 days until one of the most consequential presidential elections in recent history, the American people deserve to know that they will be able to see the candidates debate critical issues and answer tough questions from impartial journalists serving as moderators.

This is exactly why the 37-year tradition of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates sponsoring these educational forums needs to be a continuing part of the election cycle. I have had considerable experience in this arena; Hofstra University, where I formerly served as president, hosted three debates during my tenure, in 2008, 2012 and 2016.

Without these debates set by an independent commission, various media organizations invariably accused of political bias by one candidate or the other jockey for the financial windfall and ratings spike that come with hosting such a visible political event — like the Sept. 10 presidential faceoff on ABC agreed to Thursday by Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Media-sponsored debates often blur the line between objective reporting and political spin.

Look at what’s happened in every general election since 1987. Under CPD sponsorship, the last 33 presidential and vice presidential debates have been covered by the White House press pool, meaning unbranded access by all television and radio networks and streaming platforms in the United States and around the world. The first 2020 debate was watched by approximately 74 million people in the U.S.; when streaming and international are added, it was roughly 120 million viewers.

Since 1992, the CPD has made town meetings a part of every cycle, where undecided voters ask questions of the candidates, face to face. All but three of the CPD’s debates have been held on college and university campuses, allowing thousands of next-generation voters a chance to volunteer in these historic educational forums. Campuses like Hofstra added dozens of curricular and community programs to stimulate student understanding of the issues and the candidates.

If candidates go to one network for a debate, that network will choose its marquee anchors as moderators. CPD moderators are chosen from all media based on their knowledge, experience and neutrality. They know the goal is to focus time and attention on the candidates, period. There are no commercial interruptions and no corporate insignia on the set.

Presidential debates belong to the American public, not to one publicly traded commercial entity. Interestingly, the group that understands this most clearly is the other countries that seek to start their own leadership debates after watching ours.

For more than 30 years, the CPD has worked with nonprofit organizations around the world, particularly in emerging democracies, to help them establish or strengthen fair and unbiased debates. These organizations think it’s extraordinary that Americans believe they have the right to expect their candidates to face off in substantive discussions of the issues in an unbiased setting. They aspire to the kind of broad coverage the White House press pool affords. They see our model as the gold standard. And they’re in disbelief that it’s in jeopardy this cycle.

The CPD is ready to produce debates this fall. Campuses are ready to host them. Neutral moderators can conduct conversations that will be watched by record audiences thanks to broad, commercial-free coverage. Or we can let the debates fall victim to competitive taunting by campaigns. What a wasted opportunity.

This guest essay reflects the views of Stuart Rabinowitz, president emeritus of Hofstra University.