This past week, the Republican candidates for president met again in another debate forum. However, much more than the previous debates, the moderators and questioners themselves were showcased more so than the vital issues and competitors for the crown.

The debate was called “The Republican Debate: Your Money, Your Vote.” Yet, the actual manner in which the forum was conducted had little to do with either.

Instead of asking economic-centered interrogatives as promised during the promotion prior to the debate, CNBC hosts Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and John Harwood sought to attack the candidates with sometimes obscure and incongruous questions meant to seemingly draw attention to themselves and be unduly punitive to the candidates. Sadly, this trio of so-called journalists comported themselves in an amateur fashion which was conspicuously lackluster in comparison to their professional predecessors in the presidential debates of yesteryear.

Ideally, primary voters want to gain a clearer perspective on what policies each candidate would like to employ. Similarly, we citizens would like to know what personal political ideologies the candidates might hold. Also, we in the electorate would like to see how a candidate’s professional history might be applicable to the presidency.

Simple evocative queries like, “Why are you running for president?” and “What plans would you institute on an immediate basis in the first 100 days as president?” were replaced with foolish inquiries such as “What is your greatest weakness?” Obviously, this question was meant to trip up the candidates and not to derive important information. What candidate would discount his talents or capaciousness?

On the contrary, we witnessed a production of taunts, erroneous accusations and ludicrous questions that did little to clarify much of anything for anyone. For those who enjoy combativeness, Ohio Gov. John Kasich insinuated the two frontrunners were unqualified; former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush uneasily attacked his former protégée, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio; and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie aptly expressed their umbrage at the ridiculousness in which the forum was conducted. Others who stood with the participants on the stage were rendered superfluous props in an entertainment reality show. None of those remaining candidates –businesswoman Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, or Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul – gained any degree of credibility as a result of being essentially ignored.

Consequently, the ultimate goal of informing the public was not at all reached, and in its place was a sensationalistic pursuit of the tantalizing.

Initially, Harwood failed to adequately camouflage his utter disdain for Donald Trump by insulting the tenor of his quest for the presidency. Harwood bellowed that Trump was conducting a “comic book version of a presidential campaign.” Harwood also implied that Trump’s possibility of prevailing and instituting his proposed policies was “as much chance as flapping your wings and flying away.” Surprisingly, Trump to his credit did not erupt in his usual sarcasm. Instead he simply stated: “That’s not a very nice question.”

Next in the parade of inappropriate questioning was Quick, who in a particularly snarky accusation broiled Trump for condemning Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his support for the greater latitude in the issuing of H-1B visas. These visas enable highly specialized workers to legally reside in our country while working for American employers. Quick was trying to imply that Trump wanted to deport all immigrants, not just the illegal, government-dependent ones. On both counts, her accusations were embellished. On the Trump for President website, Trump does question the wide-open issuing of this type of visa for security concerns, but he does not state he wishes to stop them altogether. As The Donald expressed, “I was not at all critical of him. I was not at all. In fact, frankly, he’s complaining about the fact that we’re losing some of the most talented people. They go to Harvard. They go to Yale. They go to Princeton. They come from another country and they’re immediately sent out. I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go and work in Silicon Valley.”

Quick’s counterpart Harwood continued on the attack. He challenged Trump on his business bankruptcies. Trump leisurely dismissed this particular accusation, saying: “I used the laws of the country to my benefit.” Although this question had the potential to be more revelatory than the others posed, it was spoken in such a pugnacious fashion the question’s power was diminished.

Additionally, the moderators assailed Dr. Ben Carson for his incorporation of biblical tithing as a schematic for revising the tax system. Also, Carson was challenged for his endorsement of Mannatech Health Products. Although the good doctor was apparently involved in the promotion of these products, he felt the need to try to deny his affiliation: “Well, that’s easy to answer. I didn’t have an involvement with them. That is total propaganda and this is what happens in our society.” The problem here isn’t that Carson is obviously running away from the fact that he had made speeches and videos for the company, and that the doctor feels this association will lessen his reputation. The problem is that this question is totally irrelevant to any considered criteria when choosing a candidate to support. Simply, the moderators were playing “gotcha.”

With the small amount of time allotted him, Kasich tried to instill doubt among voters regarding the two GOP frontrunners by stating the following: “We are on the verge of perhaps picking someone who cannot do this job.” He then gave a high-decibel diatribe on how great his political record is and how others pale by comparison. His proclamations did not have the desired effect of helping his numbers rise in post-debate polls.

The usually gentlemanly Bush desperately attacked his former protégée, Rubio, with abandon in order to disparage his competitor enough so he would be considered as the establishment alternative to Trump and Carson. Bush cast aspersions on Rubio’s absence from votes in the U.S. Senate. Then the moderators piled on by citing Rubio’s personal financial troubles. Rubio adroitly turned the tables on both Bush and the questioners by dramatically expressing his modest beginnings, his working-class heritage, and his family orientation. There is no question the reporters and Bush seemed petty and Rubio came across as empathetic. This segment of the forum seemed quarrelsome and childish.

Out of frustration, when the opportunity arrived, both Cruz and Christie excoriated the moderators for their lack of professionalism. Cruz gave an extemporaneous line list of the foolish questions asked. Then Christie complained about a nebulous question regarding fantasy football and computer betting. These men stated what every viewer was wondering.

CNBC was supposed to have an incisive debate about the daunting economic problems that plague our country. Economic inequality, the astronomical national debt, the lack of balanced budgets, the burdensome and overly complicated tax system, and the erosion of the middle class were hardly touched upon, while superfluous flummery was spewed recklessly to the gain of no one and the detriment of everyone.

After the travesty of this debate, one cannot help remembering the great inquisitive and revealing presidential debates of the last 50 or 60 years. When great journalists like Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Tom Brokaw, and Tim Russert asked pertinent and informed questions, we all benefited from a greater understanding of the participants vying for our nation’s highest office. CNBC and its moderators should be ashamed, for they not only betrayed the trust of the voting public, but they also exhibited the worst lackluster traits of today’s version of what passes for journalism.