Political “debate”. The Democrat candidates, 4-16-2008. Moderaters: two television reporters, George Stephanopolis, Charlie Gibson. Why did that “debate” become a non-political bicker?
1. Headlines and by-lines are the major concerns of reporters. The first hour was all about the headlines, not the issues that are supposed to be the substance of policies for improving our society.
2. Reporters do not know what “debate” is. They intruded in the direct clash between the candidates, for direct clash is the main marker of any debate, direct clash, pros and cons, affirmative and negative, constructive and rebuttal, on the points at issue. IT CAN BE DONE.
3. The personalities and styles of the candidates that occasioned the bicker making the headlines will come out in their handling of the substantive points at issue as collateral information, and do not need the direct focus. Ah, yes. There are people who need that stuff of trivial pursuits which the reporters felt compelled to dwell on for so long at the beginning. It used to be that newspapers gauged their diction to the sixth grade level of readability. Is that “gossip” level to be the norm of substance and ideas?
4. The reporters turned what was supposed to be a “debate” into a press conference. That’s what is in their blood, what they do by habit. They know no other way. They do not know “debate”.
5. I do not blame them for doing what comes naturally to them. Then who is responsible for that programming? He or she does not know “debate”.
6. Who should be responsible for a “debate” between political opponents, debate that is truly debate? There are people in the colleges and universities who specialize in debate, just as there are specialists in biology, history, sociology, They know debate. They know how to moderate and deliver a meaningful debate. They have produced great leaders in society who have extensive knowledge about debate. They would not be the celebrity journalists that are now dominating the process, to the death of debate. A celebrity is not essential for the moderator role, but a good critic who is master of the criteria is mandatory.
7. SEE: National Communication Association. The experts are there.
WILL WE EVER LEARN!
