
December 7th / 9th, 2007
"Presidential Debates are Neither Presidential nor Debates"
Back in the dark ages I studied the fine art of public speaking and debate.
That’s when the term, “forensics” stood for something other than “CSI:
Crime Scene Investigation”. Ironically, though, a crime has been committed, and
the perpetrators work for CNN. More on that in a moment.
For most of our nation’s young history, political debates were a respected
form of campaigning and voter education, where two men would square off, each
taking opposing views on a particular issue. Whoever gave the most logical
and convincing arguments was considered the winner. Were it not for this
intellectual sparring, Abe Lincoln would have never become President. His 1858
debates with Stephen Douglas set the stage for his victory in 1860, and an
eventual spot atop Mount Rushmore. History tells us that each Lincoln/Douglas
debate lasted three hours. Under their format, the first candidate was
given one hour to open. His opponent then spoke for 90 minutes, followed by a 30
minute response from the first speaker. No wonder voters back then were so
informed.
Nearly a century later, the American electorate was treated to the first
Presidential debates broadcast on live television. The participants were Vice
President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy. Over a series of four
televised debates, the two combatants were brilliant and thorough, despite the
fact that the time constraints were much more limiting than those faced by
Lincoln and Douglas. In 1960 each candidate was allowed an eight minute opening
statement and a three minute closing. In between, they both had two and a
half minutes to respond to each question. Nixon won on points, but Kennedy won
the White House because he looked better on TV. That dichotomy proved the
downfall of modern-day Presidential debating.
It would be sixteen years before political hacks would allow their candidate
to risk a televised duel again (LBJ was not photogenic, and Nixon wasn’t
about to make the same mistake twice). When the process resumed, the medium
began to take precedent over the message, and Presidential debates would never
be the same. Thoughtful, detailed answers were replaced with one liners and
sound bites directed toward questioners who demanded terse, watered-down
responses. Only in 1992 did we get a glimpse of old-style debating when Ross
Perot used his humor and business savvy to shame Clinton and Bush (the elder)
into admitting that our nation’s finances were in a dangerous mess. Perot
seemed to have won the debate, and, at one point the three candidates were running
neck and neck in the polls. That’s when the Bush camp launched a smear
campaign against the Texas billionaire who then dropped out and later re-entered
the fight, finishing third. Since then, the corrupt two-party system has
managed to exclude strong third party candidates from televised debates,
including Perot in 1996 and Ralph Nader in 2000 and 2004. So much for serious
discourse.
In succeeding years, the quality of TV debates has declined, hitting an
all-time low with CNN’s recent dog and pony shows in which the cablers teamed
with YouTube, who supplied viewer videos as part of the questioning. The
result has been entertaining television, but meaningless debate.
Questions have been submitted by a variety of snowmen, animated characters,
loopy liberals, and scary-looking right wingers sporting a gun in one hand
and a Bible in the other. There was even a question about whether the Yankees
were better than the Red Sox. Ringmaster Anderson Cooper has allowed what
could have been a respectable forum to deteriorate into a circus, where each
caged candidate gets thrown a bone and told they can only chew on it for
thirty seconds. Moreover, Cooper has continually mismanaged the proceedings by
giving some candidates far more face time than others.
The CNN/YouTube programs are an affront to the tradition of Presidential
debating with the result being candidates who learn how to pander for a few
seconds, rather than ponder for a few moments. I have no problem with YouTube
as a medium, but that doesn’t give them or CNN a license to turn an important
event into a primetime cartoon cluster. If CNN wants to be the news leader,
then let them produce a series of debates in which only three candidates
appear at one time, then rotate the other candidates throughout the series. In
addition, each candidate would be given five to six minutes to respond to
questions from real journalists. That would give viewers a chance to properly
evaluate Presidential hopefuls in a fair, balanced, and dignified forum.
Had YouTube produced the 1858 debates, the harsh-looking, high-pitched-talking
Lincoln would have been disoriented trying to explain an issue in 30
seconds, and it’s likely that slavery would still be legal today. The fact is
that real leaders can’t move a nation to change with shallow soundbites. They
need time to formulate their positions, and we need time to digest their
answers.
Not surprisingly, the CNN debate debacle coincides with TV’s trend to
produce programs which cater to younger audiences with shortened attention spans.
Is it any wonder, then, that today’s kids can’t identify America or England
on a map of the world? That’s because many of us in the Reality TV world of
media enable and validate dysfunctional learning habits. Don’t worry if you
can’t read. No sweat if you can’t formulate a coherent thought, or write a
sentence properly. Just communicate with email slang, and send us your
sophomoric videos, and we’ll see if the next President can get down on your level
to respond. CNN used to be a responsible news organization, but they have
temporarily lost their way. Until they can make a course correction, I urge
viewers to skip the YouTube debates and watch something more educational,
like, “The Biggest Loser”.
|