I know I posted about this at another thread, but thinking about it, I believe there’s a good potential discussion here.
Gotta admit the question is an interesting one. :coolsmile:
What are the pros and cons of Jon Stewart moderating one of the 2016 Presidential Debates?
https://www.change.org/p/we-want-jon-stewart-to-moderate-a-2016-presidential-debate?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=372900&alert_id=abVtjzkktZ_hDGOiCev7UCUQbp5pIW0C+cwRoMjQaFI2HsGIzMd/OQ= Petitioning Commission on Presidential Debates We want Jon Stewart to moderate a 2016 presidential debate. M. Waters | Stanhope, NJ Over the last 16 years, Jon Stewart has played an influential and iconic role in covering US politics and media. We believe he should continue that tradition as a moderator at one of the 2016 Presidential Debates. Jon Stewart is more than qualified to tackle the moderating job. Mr. Stewart has interviewed 15 heads of state, 22 members of the United States Cabinet, 32 members of the United States Senate, 7 members of the United States House of Representatives, and scores of other political leaders from this country and around the world while establishing himself as the most trusted person in (satirical) news. In addition to his vast experience working with political figures, Jon Stewart is accomplished in presidential election coverage. His work on The Daily Show received the prestigious Peabody Award for its coverage of the 2000 and 2004 presidential races. Another important attribute of a moderator is trust. Many in the US believe Jon Stewart shares their worldview and values. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll reported that 52.1% of respondents agree that Mr. Stewart "generally shares [their] view of the world" on "some or most issues". Choosing Jon Stewart would be a popular choice among voters. …"