The Wednesday debate on ABC is only the latest debacle. These debates are crafted by the networks as entertainment, something to sell chewing gum. They believe that informative discussions of issues are boring. They want sizzle. ABC's obsession with trivia was not unique. Remember last November when CNN planted the question "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"
I've beaten this horse until it is a rotting corpse but I will continue with the whip - Let the candidates question each other. The Lincoln-Douglas debate format would be a perfect place to start. It has a fine American heritage. The format encourages conflict (there is your entertainment, networks). It focuses on issues not minutia. And, this is the most important part, the candidates face each other without the bothersome interference of highly paid, ego driven TV talking heads.
We are asking the candidates to throw out the rule book that has stifled political debate. Each party's nominee would be expected to present and defend solutions in a one-on-one dialogue with his or her opponent. The moderator would only keep time and introduce topics. ~ Newt Gingrich, LA Times, Aug. 23, 2007Newt is right about this (Yes I typed that and my head didn't explode). He urged nine 90-minute debates over the course of nine weeks. "Let the candidates pick the topics. Let the answers be as long as they need to be. Let the conversation be open-ended." The topics selected would show us what is most important to the candidates (nobody cares what Chris Matthews thinks). The candidates can wallow in trivia if they choose, they don't need George Stephanopoulos trying to lead them into the muck.
Let's try it. Please. Anything would be better than the shit Charlie Gibson, Tim Russert, and their ilk have foisted upon the American body-politic these past several months.
No comments:
Post a Comment