A friend of mine recently said that while some people have seen the Republican debates as jokes to this point in the primary season, they're anything but, and should be taken quite seriously. While I agree that, in the grand scheme of things, these debates should be taken seriously (after all, they could hold a significant impact on who the nominees are in next year's election), the debates to this point have been sorry excuses for jokes.
I've watched all four Republican debates to this point, both the junior varsity and varsity debates, and as sad as it is to say, the two junior varsity debates were of higher quality than the two varsity debates. The two junior varsity debates included six and four candidates, respectively. With between four and six candidates sharing the stage, this allowed each significant air-time to provide a clearer picture of who they were and what they stood for to the viewing audience. Not only that, but with just four to six candidates on stage, this minimized the drama-baiting questions asked by the moderators. This allowed Carly Fiorina to receive a semi-big boost from her performance in the first junior varsity debate, prompting her to be part of the varsity debate the second time around. It's uncertain at this time if any of the four candidates in the second junior varsity debate will receive a similar boost from their performance on Wednesday. With ten and eleven candidates, respectively, sharing the stage for the two varsity debates, this limited each candidate's air-time, increased the drama-baiting questions asked by moderators, and through this, minimized their effectiveness in better informing the viewing audience about each and every candidate, who they were, and where they stood on a number of issues.
Let's look back on the two main debates. In the first debate, many felt that Ben Carson had won. What did he do to deserve such praise? Absolutely nothing. As Elmer Fudd might say, he was "vewy vewy qwiet." Yes, you know your party might be in trouble when, after watching the first debate, a number of people say, "I like the quiet guy. He sounded smarter than all the others!" Carly Fiorina was hailed by cable "news" analysts as having won the second debate. Why exactly? Because of a single quote, one where she responded to a past criticism of Donald Trump's and said, "I believe all women can hear you."
So, lets break this down here:
1st debate winner: Ben Carson, for being quiet, vague when speaking, and appearing to be contemplative and intelligent
2nd debate winner: Carly Fiorina, for providing a quick comeback against Donald Trump's look-at-that-face comment, and getting emotional as she uttered debunked claims regarding Planned Parenthood
Sadly, much of the media in providing entertainment, and with that, ratings, as opposed to information. I'm not sure I can recall a single moment from any of the debates where a moderator corrected a candidate when he or she spouted nonsense. These moderators know what questions they'll be asking. Why not come fully prepared to the debates, do some research, and be ready to correct a candidate when he or she distorts the truth? Why do we always seem to have to rely on professional fact-checkers to provide their analysis to us days after the debates finished? How many people actually read such analyses? I'm guessing not many. Due to this and the moderators being lazy about their jobs, how many viewers go on believing the debunked claims they hear? At least in the media's mind, it seems that it doesn't matter which candidate is the most honest about their record or most accurate with claims about the president, his policies, or other candidates' histories, or even which candidate provides the most reasonable suggestions going forward. No, it's more about baiting candidates into providing headline-worthy statements, or better yet, statements that go viral on the Internet. What are the cable news channels more inclined to talk about, Donald Trump's debunked vaccine-autism link or his appearance on stage? What are they more likely to talk about, Carly Fiorina's lies regarding Planned Parenthood or the emotion in which she spouted these falsehoods? Sadly, it'll be the latter in both cases. It's perfectly fine to combine entertainment with education, but not when entertainment comes at the expense of education, especially when the end result is electing the new leader of our country. Ben Carson didn't win the first debate; Carly Fiorina didn't win the second debate; the American people lost in both. The Republican debates have been a joke thus far, and I'm sorry to say it, but the joke's on us.
I've watched all four Republican debates to this point, both the junior varsity and varsity debates, and as sad as it is to say, the two junior varsity debates were of higher quality than the two varsity debates. The two junior varsity debates included six and four candidates, respectively. With between four and six candidates sharing the stage, this allowed each significant air-time to provide a clearer picture of who they were and what they stood for to the viewing audience. Not only that, but with just four to six candidates on stage, this minimized the drama-baiting questions asked by the moderators. This allowed Carly Fiorina to receive a semi-big boost from her performance in the first junior varsity debate, prompting her to be part of the varsity debate the second time around. It's uncertain at this time if any of the four candidates in the second junior varsity debate will receive a similar boost from their performance on Wednesday. With ten and eleven candidates, respectively, sharing the stage for the two varsity debates, this limited each candidate's air-time, increased the drama-baiting questions asked by moderators, and through this, minimized their effectiveness in better informing the viewing audience about each and every candidate, who they were, and where they stood on a number of issues.
Let's look back on the two main debates. In the first debate, many felt that Ben Carson had won. What did he do to deserve such praise? Absolutely nothing. As Elmer Fudd might say, he was "vewy vewy qwiet." Yes, you know your party might be in trouble when, after watching the first debate, a number of people say, "I like the quiet guy. He sounded smarter than all the others!" Carly Fiorina was hailed by cable "news" analysts as having won the second debate. Why exactly? Because of a single quote, one where she responded to a past criticism of Donald Trump's and said, "I believe all women can hear you."
So, lets break this down here:
1st debate winner: Ben Carson, for being quiet, vague when speaking, and appearing to be contemplative and intelligent
2nd debate winner: Carly Fiorina, for providing a quick comeback against Donald Trump's look-at-that-face comment, and getting emotional as she uttered debunked claims regarding Planned Parenthood
Sadly, much of the media in providing entertainment, and with that, ratings, as opposed to information. I'm not sure I can recall a single moment from any of the debates where a moderator corrected a candidate when he or she spouted nonsense. These moderators know what questions they'll be asking. Why not come fully prepared to the debates, do some research, and be ready to correct a candidate when he or she distorts the truth? Why do we always seem to have to rely on professional fact-checkers to provide their analysis to us days after the debates finished? How many people actually read such analyses? I'm guessing not many. Due to this and the moderators being lazy about their jobs, how many viewers go on believing the debunked claims they hear? At least in the media's mind, it seems that it doesn't matter which candidate is the most honest about their record or most accurate with claims about the president, his policies, or other candidates' histories, or even which candidate provides the most reasonable suggestions going forward. No, it's more about baiting candidates into providing headline-worthy statements, or better yet, statements that go viral on the Internet. What are the cable news channels more inclined to talk about, Donald Trump's debunked vaccine-autism link or his appearance on stage? What are they more likely to talk about, Carly Fiorina's lies regarding Planned Parenthood or the emotion in which she spouted these falsehoods? Sadly, it'll be the latter in both cases. It's perfectly fine to combine entertainment with education, but not when entertainment comes at the expense of education, especially when the end result is electing the new leader of our country. Ben Carson didn't win the first debate; Carly Fiorina didn't win the second debate; the American people lost in both. The Republican debates have been a joke thus far, and I'm sorry to say it, but the joke's on us.
Comments
Post a Comment