It’s way too early to be talking about debates in the
presidential election.
Still, the pundit-sphere is on it already.
The debates are already shaping up to be a charade on the
Republican side, and as far as I know no one is talking about debates yet in
the Democratic camp (no one knows how that’s going to work out).
Look, the basic problem with the debates is that voters
aren't clamoring for them. Viewership is laughably small, and most
self-acknowledged viewers don’t watch to the very end.
The candidates want the debates because they’re free air
time and because the format really isn't a debate format---basically, the pols
get to say whatever they want, and they work real hard to avoid saying anything
new.
Maybe we could try this format: candidates themselves agree
on who will (or will not) be on the stage, that is, each candidate mutually
agrees with other(s) to participate. No sponsoring network. Open feed for all
networks that want to carry the debate. No moderator. Candidates alternate in
speaking. Each candidate gets five 4-minute segments to say anything she or he wants
to say. Flip a coin to see who goes first.
Thousands of people repeatedly showed up for the
Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858, and they stood quietly in a field for a couple
hours straining to listen because there weren’t any microphones. No moderators,
no prepared questions, no commercial interruptions. The candidates actually
responded to each other, and they actually said meaty stuff, and the news
coverage wasn’t mostly about the gotchas.
Copyright © Richard
Carl Subber 2015 All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment