Debates can happen, but in a vacuum

For the past four months, we’ve been trapped in a zeitgeist that all comes to an end on Wednesday – for a little while, anyway.
Our mailboxes have been filled on a daily basis with flyers from political action committees and all the other “paid for by” designations. Even our news hole has been inflated a bit over the past month, but we don’t mind that so much. That necessitates an early ‘Beside the Point’ reference, because if elections are going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars on messaging, we appreciate a little sliver, thank you very much.
Small pockets of readers don’t understand those are paid ads and that we welcome any and all candidates to our product to help woo voters their way.
We’ve done our best to provide comparative information on candidates of localized elections where there is a contest. This Tuesday, there are quite a few local contested elections and we’ve written on all of them.
But here’s where it doesn’t seem that all the money is making a difference – it doesn’t allow for the skirmish of wits that we can sometimes see in a debate.
In the 2024 general election, we saw this in full color. Republicans locally declined to participate in any forum that was attached to an organization that was historically anti-GOP platform. That year, it was the League of Women Voters. This year, State Rep. Blaine Watkins was a no-show at an event hosted by the American Association of University Women.
Certainly there was going to be a bias in the foundations of questions, despite the latter having sent out questions before hand. We have to realize that those events have the potential to be an ambush and GOP candidates stayed away. Watkins said this year’s forum around the 100th District State Representative race with former Fort Madison Mayor Matt Mohrfeld, was in prime harvest time and his family was in the fields.
So, if we can admit that these types of forums have a tendency to favor one candidate, in the least, then healthy debates among candidates becomes very difficult to assemble.
That, after a huge preamble here, is the point of this week’s key tapping.
How do we get back to holding debates that are informative to voters but out of their hands?
That’s the only way I, as a journalist, see these events having real value to the people who have essentially pushed candidates away.

It is not necessary to have people in a room to have a good debate in today’s world of livestreaming. We can do it without people. We can. It’s not near as much fun, but as an electorate, we may have clogged that part of the process to the point it’s broken.
I went to a forum in Keosauqua two years ago where Mariannette Miller-Meeks agreed to take questions in a town-hall format from a local reporter. I was asked to moderate that event and I’m so glad I turned it down. Miller-Meeks had stopped doing town halls because they became publicized screaming matches. She was absolutely right. I was embarrassed to be there and I felt awful, not only for the Congresswoman, but the poor girl who had to moderate the thing. I would have lost it on that group. That’s not how we do things and it certainly, positively, absolutely was not “Iowa-Nice”. If you don’t think Iowa-Nice is a national brand for the Hawkeye State, I can tell you it honestly is. But we’re certainly testing it.
So how do we move forward? What does a good, informative fair debate look like now? Or has it worn out its welcome?
First of all, in-person debates are good for viewerships and readerships. Being involved in them is good for the news business. But the real value is to the voters and we’re responsible for providing that news, whether it’s good for us as news producers, or not.
When I think about the future of how news organizations impact elections through forums and debates, my inclination is to remove much of the public access. These forums are typically sponsored and held in private venues. There is no guarantee of public access to them and those who are interrupting the process can be and should be removed. To that end, maybe checking IDs on the way in to make sure you are in the voting district is appropriate. But then, do we need to access law enforcement for the event? Probably.
I also think that there should be no sponsors of the events, and the questions should be entirely created by local media representatives. Media bias isn’t nearly as prevalent at the local level. Others may disagree with that, but if you talked to most elected officials in Lee County, they would tell you that Pen City Current or the Daily Democrat/Hawkeye/Daily Gate City, Radio Keokuk, WGEM, and KHQA  are probably “the most” objective organizations you will find. Bias exists everywhere, but we all can admit there wouldn’t be an ambush if forums were strictly managed by local media.
And ‘carding’ the public isn’t a bad idea if you look past the surface. I sat in on a town hall at Fort Madison’s City Hall where Chuck Grassley was subjected to shouting and disruptions from people I didn’t even know. That’s a problem. If groups on both sides are loading town halls, it’s no wonder candidates don’t want to show up. That has to be stopped, too. Audience participation is a good aspect of question and answer and it shows what grasp candidates really have of issues when informed voters can “cross examine”, but if we can’t do it in a respectful and fair way, it can’t be done.
So maybe in two years, or possibly sooner, we test a new debate format where only voters in the district can participate, and only media sponsors the event. I said in 2024 when the GOP bailed on the League of Women Voters’ event and held their own on the same day, I would never organize another forum again. But I’m not sure there’s any other way except for the media to stand up these events. I would be interested in responses to that idea, although asking for your responses is scary on this Halloween holiday.
And speaking of scary propositions, I have to walk out on a ledge today and congratulate Danny Fullenkamp on his second hole-in-one of the year. I was out with Dan, Gordy Fedler, and Gary Koester last week using up a four-some at the Burlington Golf Club that Dan and I split at a recent auction. We were on hole number three, a par three down a hill and I hit a shot straight at the flag, but over the top and off the back side of the green. Dan then stepped up, with feet correctly positioned, and hit a shot that touched a cloudless azure sky and then gently bounced about five feet in front of the flag. It hopped a little and then rolled right into the hole. High-fives and even hugs ensued as Dan turned with that big Fullenkamp smile. He told me 10 holes later that my ball, which was my ball, wasn’t my ball and I had to take a penalty stroke - for losing my ball – that was laying innocently in the rough. Congratulations, Dan! You’re the man.
I will say this gentle giant was wearing a Pinehurst golf hat that I gave him from a trip last year. – But that’s Beside the Point.
Chuck Vandenberg is editor and co-owner of Pen City Current and can be reached at Charles.V@PenCityCurrent.com.