I would propose cutting back on contrived debates. Why not interview those with opposing views separately and give each more than a minute or two to make their point without having to respond to another person's debating tactics? And why not encourage interviewers to intervene when blatant errors or falsehoods are offered as facts?
I've commented before that to his credit Wolf Blitzer seems to have been doing just that since he let us all move into the Situation Room. I've noticed he does a lot more one on one interviewing than we're used to seeing, and he achieves the always necessary "balance" by having opposing sides come on in different segments.
Having two sides on for every issue takes the responsibility off the host - it leaves the job of correcting bullshit to the other guest and the host just guides the conversation. Having on just one guest at at time means the host has to take responsibility for any bullshit.