Another debate, another round of Obama bashing. The audience barely had settled in their seats Dec. 10 when Newt Gingrich excoriated Obama for a jobs plan consisting of “higher taxes, more regulation, no American energy, and attack(ing) people who create jobs with class warfare.”

I counted at least 25 separate assaults on Obama or his administration in the course of the evening that ABC News moderators Diane Sawyer and George Stephanopolous let pass unchallenged. It’s not only unfair, even cowardly, to berate a person who is unable to respond, but it’s also a disservice to listeners when misleading attacks go unanswered.

Networks almost routinely offer the opposition party an opportunity to respond to major presidential addresses. A debate is a different sort of animal, but not so different that efforts can’t be made to find time for a presidential spokesman to make brief remarks in response to attacks.

It’s especially incumbent on news organizations, when they sponsor debates, to not aid and abet the denigration of anyone. As the code of ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists admonishes its members, “diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.”

The same principle, applied to debates, would oblige the news organizations sponsoring debates not to muzzle the candidates but to see that people who are attacked have an opportunity to respond. That would go some distance toward mitigating what looks to be a no-holds-barred open season on the president during candidate debates.