found it quite amusing :) And yes, it is very interesting that Pat
Buchanan agrees with Michael Moore these days. That wild-eyed radical
Pat :)
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 15:32:51 -0400
Subject: Moderate "Game Show" Idea
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I was watching "Real Time with Bill Mahar" last night and he had Pat
Buchanin on as a guest. As I listened to the interview it struck me that
Pat's ideas about the Iraq war are nearly identical to Michael Moore's (at
least at a gross level).
I got to thinking in general about these panel shows. They often have
several people with widely varying beliefs who argue it out and don't solve
anything... because they're not given a reason to solve anything. Instead
they try to grab as much camera time as possible and often drive home canned
rhetoric that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
My idea is to have three pairs of two person teams; two people that seem
diametrically opposed to each other. They are then placed in isolation (but
still on camera) and tasked with finding as many subjects on which they
agree as possible.
The end of the show would have them announcing their points of agreement to
the audience or a group of moderate judges (perhaps using the "American
Idol" model where the judges can make statements but not vote on the
outcome) who would then pick which team seemed to have the most meaningful
points of agreement.
For example a team that could only agree that "chocolate was good" would get
a very "low score" while a team that stated agreement on healthcare or
foreign policy would get more points. A team that could come to terms on a
controversial topic would get more accolade than a team that took the easy
road.
In the end the "winning team" would get something (perhaps money donated to
a charity of their mutual choosing) while the losing teams would be
embarrassed in some meaningless way (perhaps by getting "slimed" a la
Nickelodeon).
In this way, or so I think, the show would actually force the participants
to listen to one another, to work with them despite their feelings (any team
that simply argues the whole time will definitely get slimed for example).
Imagine such a show with Ann Coulter paired with Michael Moore or Rush
Limbaugh paired with Al Franken. With such guests the audience would of
course hear the participants personalities come through (loud and clear I
suspect) but the entire exercise would be contained in an arena of
compromise. I've no doubt even these extremists could find SOMETHING
important to agree on if they had to.
Of course the whole thing would be hosted by John Stewart. ;^)
Whatcha think?
Jim Davis________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
