Presidential Candidate Debates- how should they be run?
Lucky for me, I did not watch the Democratic Presidential Candidates debate on ABC last night. I've read from various sources (albeit, those that already prescribe to my worldview, mind you) that it was a waste of time.
I think we've known for a long time a large swath of the mainstream media outlets have been pretty lousy journalists; especially when it comes to national politics. The debate from last night (from my understanding) seemed to be an exercise in a "tabloid press-conference". Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were essentially asking Sens. Clinton and Obama the useless news of the moment (Tuzla, Wright, "bitter", lapel pin, etc.) and not addressing the pressing issues facing the voters and other interested parties. Furthermore, it appears that the questions on issues of substance were lacking in any evenhanded appraisal in its framing. Not, that I'm asking for a "liberal bias" in framing the question, but anyone with an 8th grade education and a basic understanding of the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq can come up with a question that doesn't sound like it was written by the DLC, DNC, RNC, William Kristol, or Michael Moore. Charlie Gibson demonstrated that he lacks one of those qualities.
Anyway, I think there are a number of things that we can learn from this cycle. "Inevitability", "star power", "public financing", and "tax returns" will be some buzz words that will be remembered once this is finally all over, but, given the number debates we've seen this cycle, can we think of a debate style, or serious of styles, that would best demonstrate a) a high level of understanding on the major issues facing the nation/world, b) an ability to forcefully make a point in face of opposition, c) to create logical arguments and defend them and d) give the candidates a brief opportunity to state their case to the American people? How should presidential debates be run/managed/handled? Should it be a series of debates on rotating topics? Should it mimic the style of parliamentary debate? What do you think the solution(s) should be?
I think we've known for a long time a large swath of the mainstream media outlets have been pretty lousy journalists; especially when it comes to national politics. The debate from last night (from my understanding) seemed to be an exercise in a "tabloid press-conference". Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were essentially asking Sens. Clinton and Obama the useless news of the moment (Tuzla, Wright, "bitter", lapel pin, etc.) and not addressing the pressing issues facing the voters and other interested parties. Furthermore, it appears that the questions on issues of substance were lacking in any evenhanded appraisal in its framing. Not, that I'm asking for a "liberal bias" in framing the question, but anyone with an 8th grade education and a basic understanding of the situation in Afghanistan/Iraq can come up with a question that doesn't sound like it was written by the DLC, DNC, RNC, William Kristol, or Michael Moore. Charlie Gibson demonstrated that he lacks one of those qualities.
Anyway, I think there are a number of things that we can learn from this cycle. "Inevitability", "star power", "public financing", and "tax returns" will be some buzz words that will be remembered once this is finally all over, but, given the number debates we've seen this cycle, can we think of a debate style, or serious of styles, that would best demonstrate a) a high level of understanding on the major issues facing the nation/world, b) an ability to forcefully make a point in face of opposition, c) to create logical arguments and defend them and d) give the candidates a brief opportunity to state their case to the American people? How should presidential debates be run/managed/handled? Should it be a series of debates on rotating topics? Should it mimic the style of parliamentary debate? What do you think the solution(s) should be?
Advertisement
A shortened Lincoln-Douglas format would be best when the field is down to 2 candidates, I think. I'm not sure of an ideal format for debates when there are 3 or more on stage though.
April 17, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the very least, the talking heads shouldn't be moderators. Moderators should moderate a debate between two persons anddisplay professional neutrality. Theese talking heads are not neutral by any means. They have their own agendas--sustaining controversy and keeping a profitable race going--that take the lead over the agendas of the voters. I am sure that if the Republican race were still on, these guys would be doing the same to them. Simply put, they aren't good enough journalists to run a useful debate. They stay with what they know, and they don't know much. The decline of television broadcast journalism over the last 20 years is a sad story.
April 17, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That, also.
Gwen Ifill and Jim Lehrer as moderators-for-life, imo.
April 17, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink