Those running to replace Donald Trump have 90 seconds to present their case.
Those running to replace Donald Trump have 90 seconds to present their case.
COMMENT:
While a few critics are beginning to question the present preliminary process for choosing the Democratic nominee for US president, others remain sanguine, arguing that the current debate process is a "useful device as candidates' flaws, stamina, political nimbleness, and resilience are tested. The effectiveness of policies and messagesgets tested. The strategic thrust of the overall party is tested." (Editorial, Chronicle, September 17.)
Would, if that were true. In fact, it is the opposite which is both the goal and the means of this extended TV series. I accept the editorialist's operational term "tested" because of its resonance both with sport and trivia quiz shows all the way from Mastermind to The Chase.
The format with a series of shows with as many as 10 candidates for president facing and being quizzed by four TV newsreaders resembles in its apparent goals of winnowing the field, nothing more than episodes of Survivor or at least of Sharktank.
No coincidence here, as it was Mark Burnett, the designer of Survivor who engaged a failing real estate developer into becoming the boss of the Apprentice, a role he carries on to this day only instead of a TV set it's the Cabinet Room in the White House.
The people running to replace Donald Trump in the most power-laden job on Earth have 90 seconds to present their individual CVs for the job and 45 seconds to respond to an "attack" by another candidate as set up by one of the newsreader quizmasters.
It's hard to imagine any better way of minimising respect for the office of the president with the exception of Donald Trump's daily Twitter storms.
But respect is not what these so called debates are about, neither respect for the candidates, and especially not for the people of the United States to inform themselves in choosing their possible next president.
That's obvious from the media's post-mortems focused entirely on who won, who lost, who rose, or who fell in the meaningless polls that are also designed to heighten excitement. Meanwhile the networks which chose to carry the debate, focus on the ratings, the number of viewers and resultant income from advertisers.
It's fairly clear that the present format is about evoking emotion, not reason as a basis for choosing the next president. If we are to get beyond "likeability", "who we'd like to have a beer with" and that completely wishful thought "electability," citizens deserve a series of interviews that allow time for the candidates to make their argument for their fitness and suitability. In other words a real job interview not a wrestling match.
The people running to replace Donald Trump in the most power-laden job on Earth have 90 seconds to present their individual CVs for the job.
Commercial networks have a declared interest in maintaining this charade as long as they can, as long as the money rolls in. During the 2016 campaign the now-disgraced former CBS CEO, Les Moonves, commented on the network's extensive coverage of candidate Trump and especially Trump's rallies, "it's terrible for the country but it's great for CBS."
This is where public television has an opportunity to fulfill its original promise of bringing information about current events and enlightenment of the arts and science.
Attention is the operative term here. Rather than aiming for the bumper sticker slogan provided by the bite-size bits currently on offer, extended interviews of an hour each of the five to seven most credible candidates determined by at least a 5 per cent standing in averages of five polls.
Each candidate would be questioned one on one by a randomly chosen interviewer from a panel of respected journalists, agreed upon by all the candidates, who would question each candidate in-depth with four or five questions. The general topics for the questions might best be derived from a poll of citizens rank ordering of importance. Actual questions and follow-ups would be the province of the individual journalists.
Candidates would be provided questions in advance rather than as now, in pop-quiz format, to enable thoughtful responses rather than the pointless point scoring we're currently witnessing. Surely Americans and, ultimately, the world deserve better.
