5 things moderators must attempt to do (and good luck)

Whatever you may think of Donald Trump’s politics, fitness for office and character, you have to admit he’s a genius communicator, especially on television.

That’s why it comes as no surprise that he floated the idea last week that the three scheduled presidential debates feature no interference in the form of a moderator who might inhibit his penchant for fact-challenged showmanship.

Here’s how the Republican nominee put it in a CNBC interview: “Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate, because I think the system is being rigged so it’s going to be a very unfair debate.”

Trump said he fears that the widespread criticism of Matt Lauer, who moderated NBC’s recent “Commander in Chief Forum,” means that debate moderators will come out loaded for bear. Lauer was thoroughly pummeled, especially for letting Trump go unchallenged when he said he opposed the war in Iraq from the start, which is false.

“Well, now the new person’s going to try to be really hard on Trump just to show, you know, the establishment what he can do,” Trump said. (Brian Stelter of CNN accurately called this out in his newsletter as “working the refs” pre-emptively.)

But in making this proposal, Trump inadvertently raises the issue of just how the moderators should approach these debates, which could be immensely important in the election’s outcome.

The moderators are NBC News’ Lester Holt on Monday, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Oct. 9 (that one is a town-hall-style debate), and Fox News’ Chris Wallace on Oct. 19. None of the four has moderated a general-election presidential debate before. They strike me as generally solid choices.

Here’s some unsolicited advice