Who Lost – Obama? Clinton?
Nope, it was apparently ABC.
James Fallows, as a (very small) sample:
I like and respect Stephanopoulos, and part of what I respect about him is the way he usually conducts his TV interviews. But I also remember dealing with him back in the early Clinton days, he in his role as campaign guy and me in my role as reporter. He understands thoroughly and in his bones what is wrong with the kind of mindless, substance-free gotcha questioning he and Gibson wasted their time on last night. I know he understands it because I’ve heard him shame journalists who were applying the same tactics to Bill Clinton back in the day. What was he thinking? What kind of pressure had been applied to him?
There is much, much more along these lines, some from professionals, a LOT from lefty bloggers, and massive amounts of discontent from the Obama camp, unsurprisingly, since he was on the defensive and apparently was less than overwhelming.
For me, the time has come to say goodbye to these so-called ‘debates’ that are really nothing more than question-and-answer sessions. A debate, properly, fits the following definition from Webster’s: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides. The proposition(s) are introduced, and the matter(s) debated. There is no need for a ‘moderator’, certainly not of the low caliber that we see in today’s political debates.
For example, in the classic political debates of all time, the Lincoln/Douglas debates, one man would speak for an hour, the next man had an hour and a half, and the first man returned for half an hour. The only ‘moderation’ involved was in the introduction of the speakers. The fact that we have shorter attention spans now is no excuse. Let us, in the general election, for the primary season is practically over, have a series of debates on the major issues of the day. The Democrat leads for 30 minutes, the Republican has an hour, and the Democrat returns for 30. At the next debate, the order is reversed.
The topics come flying with little thought at all: trade, housing, financial policy, health care, Iraq, diplomacy…any of these are grand topics suitable for two hours of real discussion in prime time. The candidates, I assure you, would rise to the occasion with much more substance than they can bring to these ‘gotcha’ forums of today, and the public would be positively riveted by the spectacle of politicians allowed to show their intelligence (or lack thereof) uninterrupted by either their opponents or any preening television personalities.
It won’t be done, of course, but it COULD be done, and we’d be much the better for it…
I don’t know if anyone would watch it, but I would thoroughly love that. Even if we shorten the format and go 10-20-10 or 15-30-15, it would still be great. Then you could do two or three topics in two hours. It would be really horrible for major news networks, though. Soundbites would be very hard to come by.
Wouldn’t that be great, but I’m thinking “if wishes were horses…”.
“But nobody would watch it”. That’s the excuse they would give. Really though, if you tuned in half-way through, would you really watch the rest? With a debate that is 20 questions or so, at least you can hang out ’til the next question.
Still, I would at least read the transcript.
And would it kill the media to actually refrain from talking about the debate until they’ve actually had time to digest what was said or actually fact check what everyone said? God forbid.
I don’t watch the debates, they are not worth my time and serve no useful purpose. Provocative Innovation and Television News are oxymoronic. I would support almost any change to these torturous, staged events. Peter recounted, in another thread, Jay Leno’s joke about this race being more like American Idol than not, which reminds me of the old phrase “The Truth is often first spoken in jest.”.
Where would they fit in the commercials? Maybe they could do 7-10-7, recapping on the way in and out of the breaks. Anyway, that kind of debate would be much more informative but it has no chance with the msm. Our only hope is with the new media.
Why don’t we make them travel by train and make whistle stops too? Or sit on their porches and wait for delegations to arrive? Those were good in their time but their time has passed.
The current debate style is on the whole good in my opinion. It tells us more about the candidates real beliefs and personalities than the speeches you propose.
Especially in the case of two candidates with no really policy differences, how they handle multiple questions on multiple topics is far more useful than 1/2 hour on Iraq, for instance. Does it take 1/2 hour to explain your views on Iraq? Doubtful.
Well, no, but it takes at least a half hour to lay out an actual policy for dealing with Iraq. “Get the troops out in 18 months” and “leave the troops in for 100 years” don’t actually give us any sense about how those things are going to work. I’d like to hear a Democrat discuss how you safely move the troops out, marshalling evidence of what we can expect to happen as they come out and how we should think about it. I’d similarly like to hear a Republican actually lay out some arguments about the relationship between continued troop presence and the political improvements necessary to turn Iraq into a functioning state. Obviously I think the Democrat’s job is easier because it’s possible to do it, but I am more than willing to listen to a Republican make his case in an intellectually honest, in-depth fashion. Anything we can do to make both sides more serious and concrete would be a step forward in my opinion.
Exactly right. A debate is not a policy speech, it is an argument for a specific point of view and/or action. That would be valuable to the task of selecting our next president.