POLITICAL DEBATES SHOULN’T BE ABOUT ENTERTAINMENT OR ECONOMICS

Debates are supposed to be established to help the people get to know the candidates, and get to know what’s behind them, and what their thinking process is, what their philosophy is. Debates should be policy-focused where candidates are able to lay out a plan for something, and then be questioned about it, and then go to the next one, have them lay theirs out and then be questioned about it. 

Debates should be about informing the public, letting voters see testing their positions and their demeanor  through a set of informed questions that speak to the great issues of the day? And what about the obligation of candidates to “stand for election,” not just stand behind a podium as entertainment?

The point of free-and-open exchanges between candidates and indeed, the reason the First Amendment in the U.S. provides it highest protection for political speech is not about entertainment or economics. Televised debates, and the questions that panelists pose, should serve as electronic surrogates for voters. The point should be that viewers and voters get better acquainted with the candidates and their views, via the unique collective experience of a few hours on either side of the screen. 

Over and over, the mainstream media, by means of its pundits and debate moderators, have taken control of the narrative of the presidential primary process. Out of the 14 debates hosted by the Republican National Convention (RNC) and Democratic National Convention (DNC), 10 were broadcast on cable news – CNBC, CNN, Fox News, Fox Business and MSNBC. It must be understood that these networks are, first and foremost, selling entertainment.

Debates should be predicated on policy and substance, and not the sophomoric drama that was manufactured for each debate.

The non-negotiable principles of these debates that should be expected and demanded by the people are: (1) accountability and transparency from the candidates; (2) a fair system for the exchanging ideas; (3) substantive, useful and constructive argumentation.

News media hosting the debates strive for an end result that is not only useless, but toxic to the American republic. Today, the American people are served a distorted, fragmented view of each of the candidates from these debates. It is unfair to the candidates and unfair to the American people.

The fundamental problem is that the current debate format is operating on the news media’s terms and not the American people’s terms.

A moderator is supposed to facilitate the debate for meaningful discourse, not be part an active member in it. At this point, the news media is in way too deep. It is for this reason that the stations should be stripped of their exclusive debate hosting privileges, which should be given back in their entirety to the respective political party national convention. At the very least, the parties and their organizational convention should host the debates on their own money, determine which issues will be addressed during the debate and provide their own moderator.

The constituents of ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, etc., should assume their role as national broadcast news outlets to televise the debates for the greater good of the people. The role of the mainstream media in solely broadcasting the debates should be done as a service and demanded by the American people, ensuring a public broadcast of the debate is provided.

The process of choosing the president should not be about the news organizations. Sadly and frustratingly, that is exactly what it has become. It should be about the American people hearing the arguments they need to hear on the policies that actually matter, which should be spoken from the candidates themselves; not misinterpreted and improperly projected by surrogates in mainstream media.

All of this should be done in the hope that the individual will find a more complete, fair and truthful understanding of a candidate’s platform, and, therefore, adequate competency in electing the next president.