For as long as I can remember, political debates have not been about the issues, or even debating. It's all about the politics. This is, like Jenkins says, why the Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential election refused to participate in an unedited debate show with Anderson Cooper. Politicians "like to control the environment" (Jenkins 276). This is why they agree upon a select number of questions to prepare before debates.
And if you notice, even with the predetermined questions in their arsenal, most of the time responses in debates end up being more like word vomit - trying to see which candidate can say the most bipartisan, patriotic, and relevant things in the time allotted.
I am reminded of the show Crossfire. Two very partisan gentlemen argue over a minute issue until they are blue in the face, and yet no one is any closer to a consensus nor agreement than before the "debate." Thank goodness Jon Stewart chose to go on the show to call out Tucker Carlson for the artificial debates CNN set up for him and his counterpart.
It is due to examples like these that I am so impressed that the Democratic candidates agreed to participate in the "experimental" show with Anderson Cooper. Though I do feel that it backfired. While some racy issues made it onto the air, many (maybe even thousands) more got thrown out for being too controversial or not right for television.
Is it right for television programs to edit what content (within censorship limits) politicians and the public are exposed to? Should Americans not be able to ask politicians their true stances on controversial and off-the-cuff issues? Should politicians be given time to prepare answers? Personally, I would rather hear what a presidential candidate has to say on an issue on the fly, perhaps over dinner?
I think that's an advantage that Iowa and New Hampshire have over the rest of the country-- by traditionally having the caucuses and the first primary, the residents of both states do have the chance to talk to candidates, ask questions, and get real (or as close to real as possible) answers, before the crowds get too big and the field gets too small.
ReplyDeleteThe chapter mentioned two frivolous questions that were the most-asked (and were rightly ignored in the debate), but what about the serious questions? Those deserve to be answered, not shied from or mocked because they come from the people.
No, both guys on Crossfire argued until they were RED in the face! Haha. Your point is well taken. In politics/tv, people would rather argue about issues that stir emotions than about anything else, relevant or not.
ReplyDeleteAs for your question at the end of the blog, I think it brings up a good point about the American media. It has long been criticized as not serving the people well. The media is SUPPOSED to go find the information that it would take way, way, way too long for the average American to seek out by himself. If these questions for the candidates were questions that Americans wanted to have answered, why would the media prevent them from airing?
I think this brings up an interesting point as it relates to collective intelligence. Perhaps we can replace the role the media is supposed to be doing by connecting with those who are on site at the moments of the occurences that make the "news".