Debates have evolved into debacles. Clown shows. Seems they intentionally behave badly to create sound bites, add excitement or gain ratings. It's not working. It's embarrassing.
Keep the debates rebuttal. I watched the entire second debate and I’ll continue to watch future ones. And the FOX News (I don’t watch any cable news networks left or right) did ask hard questions but the candidates ignored them as expected.
Alternatives? Yes, turning off the mics when the candidate’s time is up. Having them all appear on screen but from different locations so that the moderators can ask and hear only one candidate at a time and viewers would see and hear only once answer at a time. Controlling the mics would eliminate cross talk.
Marvin Kalb format? Not in 2023. Very few people have the attention span for such a format today. And some folks would tune in for one candidate one day but not for the others. It would be ineffective.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Totally agree with a few teeny additions:
* Fox (or its moderators) should be ashamed that Trump questions were apparently taboo. On the day that Trump was ruled in a court case as a fraud (and he's leading polls by wide margins), that silence was incredible. I'd like to know who has the sense, or the courage, to call out a con man in plain English.
* The news media (especially the right-wing echo chamber) should get blamed for its journalistic failure to report lies and half-truths. But a candidate claims something crazy and they don't care if the "lamestream media" reports so because their media allies will not call it out and those viewers will likely never know the difference.
* I'd be in favor of quality, solo interviewers (give me Jonathan Swan) in a one-on-one for a half hour. No need to be done the same night. Citizens could more easily sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I would like to see other study results ( .. 62% of local news users say it’s “very important” to ask tough, respectful questions, and 61% say it’s important to fact-check the answers.) Candidates who entertain or who use hyperbole or personal attacks often receive greater media attention, especially on social media. Voters like being entertained--Trump proves the point. It is partly human nature, partly due to polarization and tension in today's politics and partly due to entertainment being the lowest common denominator to prove a point.
Here’s a link to the RTDNA study. I didn’t put it in the column because the meat of it is in a slide show that I found a little confusing to decipher. I was used to looking at research projects like this at work, but not sure the majority of readers would find it helpful.
The other issue I have with the study is that it does not appear to directly include local newspapers, rather just TV, radio and online. So I didn’t want to rely on it too much to draw more detailed conclusions in the column.
Thank you for sharing. The omission of papers calls for a follow-up study. Perhaps you can address our journalism schools and recommend they address studies like this, or even the statement: "Just 39 percent of people were in strong agreement that local news sources were balanced and represented all sides of an issue.
I apologize for a second comment (in the legislature, it was common etiquette to apoloize when one rises and speaks a second time). An old friend (who is a die hard conservative R) posted on FB that he disliked the constant candidate interruptions during the debate. I posted that I agreed with him and civility fosters communication and dialogue. Trump would need to have his microphone turned off if he interrupts.
Seriously, why aren’t the microphones cut for those debaters who abuse time limits? That’s been an obvious solution discussed among “outsiders” for a very long time.
And, why are debates on pay-for TV? A democracy that works for all? At the very least PBS should run the debates, even if they’re broadcast the day after.
Are cable broadcasts exclusive money deals for the parties…party fundraisers disguised as transparency of the political process?
I’d truly like to know the thought processes behind the above! Thanks for reading,
Sharon, debates used to be on broadcast TV all the time but those networks have moved away because they don’t generate a lot of ad sales. They are expensive to produce. Even then, they tended to be exclusive to one network. These days, the parties want to be on a “friendly” network, which is why the first two GOP debates have been on Fox News.
Thanks for arming us w. a very simple question when the tired, old “weaponization” comment is thrown in a conversation. Good to hear from you, as always.
It was Snow Whitehead and the Seven Dwarfs. Any pretense of thoughtful exchange of different views was lost perhaps a century or more ago. Compare to a transcript of the Lincoln/Douglas debates. https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p267401coll36/id/12378
I wouldn't excuse the Justice Department of politicization though, based only on the prosecution of Menendez. His situation easily fits under the political management rubric of a "limited hangout"--a sacrificial example with the happy side effect of diverting attention from more deeply disturbing actions. Consider the FBI communications exposed by the "Twitter Files" and resultant Democratic attacks in Congress of two liberal journalists who exposed those back channel influences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEeaVOzqwAY
I remember the Des Moines Register's 1980 Republican debate, during which John Connolly looked quizzically at the ceiling and said, "Where, oh were, is Ronald Reagan tonight?" He was laying in the weeds in New Hampshire to deliver a knockout blow. Rope a dope worked for the Gipper in '80 and it's working for tne new Teflon Don this go round. Our 45th president won that debate by his absence -- except he didn't get much mileage out of it because the president of the United Auto Workers refused to meet with him on the picket line. He had to go to a nonunion shop. Mr. Biden may have out-publicity-stunted his predecessor this round -- for a change. Trump won the debate. Biden won the photo op.
My favorite debate question came in the 1980 Iowa U.S. Senate debate at the Iowa Daily Press Association convention between incumben Sen. John Culver and then-U.S. Rep. Charles Grassley. When a question came up about the Equal Rights Amendment, Grassley demurred, saying it was a matter for state legislatures. That's when my once-and-future Waterloo Courier colleague Bob Case, not content to let Grassley off the hook, said, in his measured baritone, "Congressman Grassley, if I tell you what I think about the ERA, will YOU tell me what YOU think about it?" BOOM! Bob still didnt' get more of an answer but it was the highlight of the debate. Bob had been a longtime aide to Congressman H.R. Gross, ran for his boss' old seat and lost to then-state legislator Grassley in the 1974 Republican primary. Bob also was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of World War II and Korea and fought at Tarawa and Chosin Reservoir. He was pretty fearless. We miss journalists like him in today's climate.
I agree, Dave. The debates are mostly useless these days.
Debates have evolved into debacles. Clown shows. Seems they intentionally behave badly to create sound bites, add excitement or gain ratings. It's not working. It's embarrassing.
Keep the debates rebuttal. I watched the entire second debate and I’ll continue to watch future ones. And the FOX News (I don’t watch any cable news networks left or right) did ask hard questions but the candidates ignored them as expected.
Alternatives? Yes, turning off the mics when the candidate’s time is up. Having them all appear on screen but from different locations so that the moderators can ask and hear only one candidate at a time and viewers would see and hear only once answer at a time. Controlling the mics would eliminate cross talk.
Marvin Kalb format? Not in 2023. Very few people have the attention span for such a format today. And some folks would tune in for one candidate one day but not for the others. It would be ineffective.
Keep the debates? Yes, of course.
Thanks for your input, Steve.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Totally agree with a few teeny additions:
* Fox (or its moderators) should be ashamed that Trump questions were apparently taboo. On the day that Trump was ruled in a court case as a fraud (and he's leading polls by wide margins), that silence was incredible. I'd like to know who has the sense, or the courage, to call out a con man in plain English.
* The news media (especially the right-wing echo chamber) should get blamed for its journalistic failure to report lies and half-truths. But a candidate claims something crazy and they don't care if the "lamestream media" reports so because their media allies will not call it out and those viewers will likely never know the difference.
* I'd be in favor of quality, solo interviewers (give me Jonathan Swan) in a one-on-one for a half hour. No need to be done the same night. Citizens could more easily sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I would like to see other study results ( .. 62% of local news users say it’s “very important” to ask tough, respectful questions, and 61% say it’s important to fact-check the answers.) Candidates who entertain or who use hyperbole or personal attacks often receive greater media attention, especially on social media. Voters like being entertained--Trump proves the point. It is partly human nature, partly due to polarization and tension in today's politics and partly due to entertainment being the lowest common denominator to prove a point.
Ralph, you may comment as often as you like!
Here’s a link to the RTDNA study. I didn’t put it in the column because the meat of it is in a slide show that I found a little confusing to decipher. I was used to looking at research projects like this at work, but not sure the majority of readers would find it helpful.
The other issue I have with the study is that it does not appear to directly include local newspapers, rather just TV, radio and online. So I didn’t want to rely on it too much to draw more detailed conclusions in the column.
https://www.rtdna.org/news/rtdna-publishes-study-on-trust-in-local-news-elections-coverage
Thank you for sharing. The omission of papers calls for a follow-up study. Perhaps you can address our journalism schools and recommend they address studies like this, or even the statement: "Just 39 percent of people were in strong agreement that local news sources were balanced and represented all sides of an issue.
I apologize for a second comment (in the legislature, it was common etiquette to apoloize when one rises and speaks a second time). An old friend (who is a die hard conservative R) posted on FB that he disliked the constant candidate interruptions during the debate. I posted that I agreed with him and civility fosters communication and dialogue. Trump would need to have his microphone turned off if he interrupts.
Seriously, why aren’t the microphones cut for those debaters who abuse time limits? That’s been an obvious solution discussed among “outsiders” for a very long time.
And, why are debates on pay-for TV? A democracy that works for all? At the very least PBS should run the debates, even if they’re broadcast the day after.
Are cable broadcasts exclusive money deals for the parties…party fundraisers disguised as transparency of the political process?
I’d truly like to know the thought processes behind the above! Thanks for reading,
SharonJ
Sharon, debates used to be on broadcast TV all the time but those networks have moved away because they don’t generate a lot of ad sales. They are expensive to produce. Even then, they tended to be exclusive to one network. These days, the parties want to be on a “friendly” network, which is why the first two GOP debates have been on Fox News.
Thanks for arming us w. a very simple question when the tired, old “weaponization” comment is thrown in a conversation. Good to hear from you, as always.
Thanks, Trudy.
It was Snow Whitehead and the Seven Dwarfs. Any pretense of thoughtful exchange of different views was lost perhaps a century or more ago. Compare to a transcript of the Lincoln/Douglas debates. https://ohiomemory.org/digital/collection/p267401coll36/id/12378
I wouldn't excuse the Justice Department of politicization though, based only on the prosecution of Menendez. His situation easily fits under the political management rubric of a "limited hangout"--a sacrificial example with the happy side effect of diverting attention from more deeply disturbing actions. Consider the FBI communications exposed by the "Twitter Files" and resultant Democratic attacks in Congress of two liberal journalists who exposed those back channel influences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEeaVOzqwAY
And on the same day that journalist Taibbi testified in the face of attacks by two Democratic members, the IRS visited his home. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/irs-visited-twitter-files-journalist-matt-taibbi-s-home-as-he-gave-evidence-to-congress/ar-AA19c1cN#image=1
I remember the Des Moines Register's 1980 Republican debate, during which John Connolly looked quizzically at the ceiling and said, "Where, oh were, is Ronald Reagan tonight?" He was laying in the weeds in New Hampshire to deliver a knockout blow. Rope a dope worked for the Gipper in '80 and it's working for tne new Teflon Don this go round. Our 45th president won that debate by his absence -- except he didn't get much mileage out of it because the president of the United Auto Workers refused to meet with him on the picket line. He had to go to a nonunion shop. Mr. Biden may have out-publicity-stunted his predecessor this round -- for a change. Trump won the debate. Biden won the photo op.
My favorite debate question came in the 1980 Iowa U.S. Senate debate at the Iowa Daily Press Association convention between incumben Sen. John Culver and then-U.S. Rep. Charles Grassley. When a question came up about the Equal Rights Amendment, Grassley demurred, saying it was a matter for state legislatures. That's when my once-and-future Waterloo Courier colleague Bob Case, not content to let Grassley off the hook, said, in his measured baritone, "Congressman Grassley, if I tell you what I think about the ERA, will YOU tell me what YOU think about it?" BOOM! Bob still didnt' get more of an answer but it was the highlight of the debate. Bob had been a longtime aide to Congressman H.R. Gross, ran for his boss' old seat and lost to then-state legislator Grassley in the 1974 Republican primary. Bob also was a U.S. Marine Corps veteran of World War II and Korea and fought at Tarawa and Chosin Reservoir. He was pretty fearless. We miss journalists like him in today's climate.
Excellent point: what about Bob?