Because if you make a mistake as Jerry Ford did when he said Eastern Europe is not under Soviet domination, that really hurt him. Carter had been dodging Reagan. God, in those days, some of the debates were closer to the election. The candidates like to leave time now in case they have to clean something up, so now we have the last debate at least two weeks before the election.
And the fact that Carter had been dodging him made it even worse. Cite this article Hide citations. LaFrance, Adrienne. Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, 1 Oct. LaFrance, A. Nieman Journalism Lab. Last modified October 1, Accessed November 12, The Nieman Journalism Lab is a collaborative attempt to figure out how quality journalism can survive and thrive in the Internet age. By Adrienne LaFrance adriennelaf Oct. What was the first presidential debate you were involved in?
Bill Wheatley: Well, my debate experience actually goes back to the gubernatorial election in Massachusetts between Frank Sargent and Mike Dukakis. That must have been A debate in those days was relatively easy. It went off reasonably well. But then there were no debates until , and that was Carter-Ford. LaFrance: The single-moderator format puts a lot of responsibility on one person. I would say that as a rule in the presidential debate, the moderators are less likely to be as aggressive as some moderators [in the primaries].
LaFrance: But, theoretically, with the continuity of one moderator and the opportunity for longer back-and-forths, the moderators are better positioned to challenge candidates in real time, call them out on misleading spin. Wheatley: You would think so. Wheatley: I support it being made public. I think the viewing public has a right to know.
For example, the candidates might agree not to ask questions of each other. Someone got a hold of one a few years ago. Some of the agreement is relatively minor stuff, such as the candidates will be permitted to stand; the podiums will be no higher than this; water will be provided — those sorts of comforts. The selection of the moderators, as far as I can tell, the Commission on Presidential Debates is silent on that.
There was a time when candidates did have [a say]. Perhaps not. LaFrance: What has changed from a production standpoint? I watched all of the Republican primary debates and some of them were so over-the-top slickly produced that I felt like I was watching reality TV. Unlike the presidential debates, individual networks sponsored the primary debates — sometimes in conjunction with a local newspaper or something.
I think the television people use television production values. LaFrance: What still needs to happen for these debates to feature even more robust journalism, to better serve the viewing public? LaFrance: If you were moderating an Obama-Romney debate, what questions would you insist on getting answers to?
Wheatley: I would definitely ask Romney what makes him believe that tax cuts will have such a dramatic impact on the economy, in light of the history of tax cuts. I would press Obama — but also Romney — on this business of how one governs. Because I think it is an important governance characteristic. LaFrance: For the first time last fall, engagement with at-home audiences — taking questions from Twitter, for example — was really a prominent feature of the Republican primary debates.
Wheatley: As far as I can tell, there is no social media direct component here. At the very least, people should be permitted to send questions to the moderators.
LaFrance: comes to mind. The candidates stood at the podiums waiting for it to get fixed. You could always have technical problems. Anything can happen. All of the attention is on the mistakes. The other thing is the so-called one-liners. Lloyd Bentsen was just waiting for [Dan] Quayle to compare himself to Jack Kennedy because they knew he had done it before.
Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Wheatley: And it was devastating. Some one-liners happen spontaneously. Some are planned. I think most candidates have a few in their back pocket. Several other banks in other countries are also under investigation. Headed by the managing director of the Financial Services Authority, Martin Wheatley, the review is examining how the Libor rate, the benchmark interest rate for trillions of financial contracts including some mortgages, is calculated and regulated.
Interested parties will have four weeks to respond to the proposals. Mr Wheatley aims to finalise his conclusions by the end of September. The Treasury has said that the quick timetable will allow the government to add legislation through the Financial Services Bill, which is currently being discussed in the House of Lords. The BBA said it was "proactively cooperating with the regulatory authorities on Libor and Libor is calculated using rates submitted by a group of leading banks who estimate how much it costs them to borrow in 10 currencies and 15 lengths of loans, ranging from overnight to 12 months.
However, Mr Wheatley also said that there should be "enough change, but not changing it so far so that millions of contracts are put at risk". One of the difficulties stems from litigation risks as stopping Libor's usage would require re-negotiating and re-drafting millions of existing contracts that could lead to disputes between parties.
A change in such a global benchmark as Libor would also need careful planning and a coordinated international effort among regulatory authorities. The review may also extend to other benchmarks including oil, gold, stock prices and other inter-bank rates in the future, said Mr Wheatley. The paper is also exploring the option of giving the FSA and the Financial Conduct Authority - which Mr Wheatley will run from next year - new powers to criminally prosecute offenders.
Bank of England governor Mervyn King has said central bankers will discuss reforms to Libor when they meet in September.
0コメント