So now the tables are turned, it’s open season on the media
types running Presidential debates. When I was in the media, I sat on panels
and frequently moderated these kinds of things myself. With all due respect to
Dr. Carson, it’s not brain surgery.
The first, and simplest thing, is making candidates stick to
the time limits. Now there’s discussion about buzzers, gongs, etc., to signal
time is up. My favorite low-tech solution is a gavel. Everyone knows what that
means, and repeated whacking when someone doesn’t shut up makes the speaker look
bad.
The second important principle is forcing candidates to
answer the questions -- which means interrupting the speaker if they evade or
try to bring up a new topic. And if it means repeatedly asking the question to
get an actual answer, it must be done. The panelist must be a bulldog.
If one candidate mentions another in a negative light,
certainly the “victim” should be given the opportunity to respond – but it’s
nobody else’s business.
Do media people ask stupid questions sometimes? To quote
Sarah P., you betcha. Questions that goad one candidate into attacking another,
for instance, should be absolutely off limits. Maybe this is a point where you
need an impartial moderator who can knock a bad question down.
But are candidates’ past lives and statements fair
game? Absolutely! If there’s a “gotcha,”
well, the audience needs to know two things – not just the quality of the
explanation by the candidate, but also how the candidate reacts to the
question. Calm? Defensive? Truthful? Evasive? We are electing human beings with
personal qualities, which are sometimes more important than whether we agree
with them on particular issues.
This is the big one, and it’s our job as audience members,
not the media folks’. A candidate may be entertaining up there on the debate
stage. But we have to mentally put that individual in front of the podium
during a White House news conference, perhaps after an emergency. As President,
every word that comes out of his or her mouth will be dissected and
interpreted, and could have major national or international impact. Which of
the people we are looking at now would we feel comfortable seeing in that
situation?
The quality of these debates, or forums or whatever name we
give them, may vary depending on the format or the questioners. But we learn something
new every time. Even a little sunshine goes a long way,
No comments:
Post a Comment