 |
 |
While the presidential debates can be some help in choosing a candidate, they often amount to little more than a collection of sound bites. Voters should demand more.
Clinton and Dole faced off Sunday in the first of two presidential debates. Unfortunately, the candidates spent much of the time tossing statistics and obscure legislative references across the stage - like when Clinton accused Dole of not going to bat for the McCain-Feingold Bill. There's one the average family debates at the dinner table. The result - mostly superficial, often confusing, discussion of major issues.
No wonder fewer people, 20 percent fewer, according to preliminary Nielsen figures, watched last night's debate than watched the Bush-Clinton-Perot face-off in 1992. That's 8 million households, or about 32 million fewer people, tuning in.
The debate format itself deserves some of the blame.
In a forum that allows candidates just two minutes to respond to questions such as "How do your policies differ from the president's?" or "How do you keep from being influenced by special interests?" we can't expect much more than sound bites.
But we should ask for more. And it might possible to get more by supporting an idea two U.S. senators and "the most trusted man in America" have proposed.
Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Walter Cronkite took out a full-page advertisement in the form of an open letter to the four major networks in the Oct. 1 issue of The New York Times . They propose that all the major networks set aside two-and-a-half minutes in prime time from Oct. 17 through Nov. 1 to allow the presidential candidates to deliver mini-speeches on alternating nights.
It's a good idea that, in addition to the two 90-minute debates, could give people a little more insight into the candidates' positions. And the delay between responses would provide viewers time to digest the information, one manageable bite at a time.
Dole and Clinton have already agreed to such a format, but the networks, except PBS, have not. "For the better part of a year," the open letter states, "we've been appealing to you (the networks) to adopt a small fix we think would greatly improve political campaigns."
But the networks, the letter says, have resisted, because they're worried about losing viewers, rating and revenues.
"Put it in prime time," NBC news anchorman Tom Brokaw is quoted as saying, "and you can hear remotes turning to ESPN or the Playboy Channel."
Too bad the networks so underestimate the American people. Too bad they are afraid to offer something different.
This "running debate" idea could provide balance, and some substance, to compete with the 30-second hit-and-run political ads while still allowing for a give and take betwen the candidates.
Staff Editoral
|
|
|