On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 5:29 PM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> For me, at least, it seemed that by the time of the 1992 campaign (and > perhaps by 1988), I knew enough about the respective campaigns to not get > anything new out of the debates. To my mind, that increase in available > information has increased. > > At the same time, this Debate Commission has managed to, well, manage the > process in such a way that makes it less and less likely that new > information will come out in the debates. Personally, I'd like to see a > frequency of debates somewhere between the three +1 VP we get now, and the > excessive number in the nominating contests. Start after the last > convention, instead of waiting until October. Study how the UK utilized > online questions and responses (Example - > http://www.youtube.com/ukelection) to improve on the lousy execution here > in the U.S. Just shy of three months out, I have no confidence that the > Commission can manage a meaningful online component as they promise in the > debate format announcement: > > "In addition, the CPD is undertaking an innovative internet-based voter > education program that will encourage citizens to become familiar with the > issues to be discussed in the debates, and to share their input with the > debate moderators in advance of the debates. The program, which will be > announced later this month, will be led by a coalition of internet leaders." > > The citizens will become familiar with the issues to be discussed in the > debates? I know it's tempting, but talk down much? > > Given all the efforts - on both sides of the aisle - to utilize new > technologies to engage their supporters (and the public), it is > disappointing that the Debate Commission still seems captured by old media. > > And no, I still won't watch. > I am not trying to persuade anyone to watch. Like you, I rarely learn anything new during the debates, since I follow the elections very closely, listen to major and minor speeches throughout the long (long) campaign season, and read many of the speeches online that I don't get to hear. It certainly is unlikely that anything new of substance would be revealed in a debate that was not already available in more detail elsewhere. I don't watch the debates to learn more information, but because I am also interested in the their less substantive effects on the electorate, and how they will be spun in the media later. My only point is that it is not true (in my view) that nothing of substance is said in the debates; on the contrary, the majority of what is said in the debates is of substance. The majority of voters do not follow the campaigns very closely. For them, the debates are an advanced seminar in public policy, compared to the most frequent source of information about the candidates, which are 30 second commercials. I don't know if Romney's role at Bain in 1999, or Obama's "you didn't build that", statements will still be in play in October. If they are, most voters will learn more of substance about both of those by watching the debates than they will be watching commercials from either side. Of course, they can learn even more by reading a little on their own, but most will not do that. I certainly do not disagree that the debates can and should be improved, nor do I disagree that for several reasons they are unlikely to improve. However let's not kid ourselves, if by some magic we were able to get a format similar to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the only people who would watch would be the ones who watched the reenactments of those 19th century Senate debates on CSPAN a few years ago. Presidential debates are simplistic and overly safe for the same reason that most of the content on TV, whether it be news, entertainment or sports, is simplistic - they are geared to the attention span and capacity for complex thought of the average American. It is just for that reason that I am always surprised by how much actual content these candidates are able to squeeze into their 90 second windows. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
