VIEWER FEEDBACK: Jeff in Brighton writes, "If bulls#!t was music, you'd be a brass band." pic.twitter.com/ackbUTWH2t
— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) May 8, 2024
I’ve been busy with (good) family stuff, but I had a chance to watch the full CO-4 debate that TaMara posted about the other day, and here are my take-homes.
First, debates are a bit of a conundrum. Most of them — especially the ones sponsored by the Presidential Debate Commission — are terrible. When they’re not stilted and dull, they’re taken over by the debater most willing to break the rules. Yet, normies with a bit of a sense of civic responsibility watch them, so they’re important. If more debates were moderated the way that the CO-4 debate was, I think normies would be able to learn more about the candidates from them, or at least they’d get some enjoyment from watching the moderators shut down a bunch of bullshitting blow-hards.
Second, what Kyle Clark did in that debate looked easy, but it was hard. Above all, he had the confidence to control the debate because he seems to feel secure in his position. Being a well-liked news anchor at a local TV station is a job for life if you want it (Rochester residents will know that Don Alhart retired from 13-WHAM a few days ago after 58 years working at the station). So he doesn’t have to worry about his bosses’ getting pissed at him for asking hard questions.
Like Alhart, Clark appears to see himself as a bit of a community booster — he wants to make Denver a better place, just as Alhart did in Rochester. So unlike the cult of the savvy that rules DC journalism, his conception of journalism includes talking seriously about issues that have real relevance. There wasn’t a single “gotcha” question in the debate he hosted.
That said, there are some specifics of his method that can be adopted by pretty much anyone with a little grit:
- Pack undisputed facts into your questions. He asked one of the candidates about his DUI and told the whole story in his question. His real question was “Why should we trust you if you hid the fact you got a DUI from your fellow Republicans?” but if he hadn’t packed the facts into the question, the candidate could have spent his time quibbling or denying.
- If they don’t answer your question, point that out. (This seems so damn simple but I haven’t seen many moderators do it as forcefully as Clark.) Related to that:
- Give them a second chance to answer yes/no if it is a yes/no question.
- But if isn’t a yes/no question, just tell them that they chose to spend their time not answering the question so we have to move on. This is exceedingly rare in a debate.
- Debate real issues, but be a stickler on facts. Republicans, especially, don’t want this because they live in bullshit world where they just warp the “facts” to match their agenda.
- Don’t argue with the candidates. When he asked Boebert about the Beetlejuice handjob/vaping incident, she tried to turn it around on him. He just said his piece while she was trying to talk over him and moved on. (Her argument that “a private moment” was interrupted in a theater full of 300 people was classic, btw.)
Local TV journalists get shit on a lot, but I’ve always felt that they were pretty good reporters. They’re constricted by the brevity of their form, but in our new paywall journalism world, TV station websites are probably the best, free source of local news left.




