Debate Moderator Fair Game

The articles I'm looking at are both featured on the NYTimes website:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/us/politics/debate-moderators-are-subject-to-partisan-rancor.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/politics/after-debate-a-harsh-light-falls-on-jim-lehrer.html?ref=politics

These two articles focus primarily on Jim Lehrer, who moderated the first Presidential debate between Obama and Romney.

This seems to highlight the clash between the new and old styles. This is most obvious if one observes both this debate and the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates. Jim Lehrer operates fairly similar to the moderator of the 1960 debate. Indeed, so much so that the 2012 candidates have no trouble bulldozing through any protest on Mr. Lehrer's part.

Mr. Lehrer seems to firmly be a part of the older style of journalism where the reporter is not at all in the news story itself. Their job is to merely observe, or as a moderator, merely get the candidates to talk about the issues. This is directly opposite of new journalism, where the reporters themselves often inject themselves into the news stories.

Interestingly, Mr. Lehrer is apparently catching large amounts of flak for "allowing" the candidates to carry on as they did.