There has been a lot of criticism about media focus on the "theatrics" of the presidential debates rather than the issues. But that's because the current format of naming one almighty moderator who "alone" decides on the issues and questions (even, apparently in the Town Hall debate) means that many issues -- and most of those that are important to people -- get ignored.
Inconceivable that a "domestic policy" debate doesn't cover immigration or that a "foreign policy" debate ignores the crisis in Europe. What planet do these moderators live on? And why did we have to listen to vice presidential candidates discuss Syria for 15 minutes just because it's something Martha Raddatz wants to know more about?
Raucous and comical as they were at times, the Republican primary debates, with a much better mix of moderators and formats, at least covered the issues and gave voters a chance to see where these candidates really stood.
The stifling format of these more formal presidential debates reflects the desire of the campaigns and the "presidential debate commission" to tightly control events. With these septuagenarian moderators and their astonishing self-censorship, they get what they want and the voters miss out on an opportunity to nail down these candidates on issues that matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment