This Atlantic article might be on to something.
It proposes that the US shed away these TV political debates in favor of a format that is more realistic. Conor Friedersdorf tells us that, given the nature of presidential decisions, debates favoring candidates who can sling out rapid-fire comments and counterarguments should give way to debates rewarding those who are prudent and meticulous.
Decisions by the president are not necessarily made by one man but are products of deliberations of committees and cabinets. A candidate who shows that he can sift through this mass of information, including his own personal opinion and knowledge, and find a nugget of wisdom is a good candidate. Unfortunately, TV debates often feature the opposite of this ability, frowning on candidates who can indeed facilitate but have no oratorical acumen in favor of those who can set the stage on fire like a showbiz star.
A format that could replace TV debates, as suggested by the writer, is the text-based chat, with candidates given ample opportunity to check their facts, consult with the appropriate people, while rebutting the other candidate's arguments.
I don't know if this idea will ever fly but it will revolutionize debates if it ever gains traction.
No comments:
Post a Comment