The future of debate?

It’s a while since I looked forward to a televised “debate.” Tory leadership election? 2019 general election? No thanks. The penalties for failure are so severe, and the effort - preparation, spinning, threats of retaliation - so intense that the chances of any unexpected insights emerging is slim.

But now we have the trainwreck that is Trump v. Biden. Even worse, we have the retrospective thoughts of the moderator, Chris Wallace. He was touted beforehand as someone with the nerve to stand up to Trump, but it didn’t work out that way. He tried to ask him tough questions, he tried to shut him up. None of it worked. Trump bullied like he does, ignoring the question, interrupting Biden’s answers, shooting off at any tangent that happened to appeal.

This is how it looked to Wallace. At the start he was thinking “This was great - this was a debate!” Really? “I guess I didn’t realise…that this was going to be the president’s strategy, not just for the beginning, but for the entire debate.” Had he not watched Trump v. Clinton? Was there any evidence to show that Trump might become more reasonable as the evening wore on?

Wallace has read subsequent reviews. “I know some people think…I didn’t jump in soon enough.” They do. Other people think he has a mic switch, he can cut off Trump’s sound, and restore some order to the debate. Insist that he lets Biden finish. Require him to answer the question about the Proud Boys. But he doesn’t.

So whose fault is it? Two alpha males getting carried away? Or was it Trump who derailed the debate? Wallace can’t bring himself to say what is obvious to anyone unlucky enough to watch. “Well, he certainly didn’t help. But to quote the president “It is what it is.” “

And that’s it? A brief shrug of the shoulders, and go home? That’s all the broadcaster has to offer on a fiasco for which he was responsible? It’s not surprising that we’re in trouble, if the guardians of impartiality have given up like this.