Why The Whining About Debates?

Posted on 9 Comments

by Smitty

Ann Althouse has a post that triggers the thought: Why are we whining about debates?

There is substantial butt-hurt in the blogs about how how candidates X, Y, and Z are getting short shrift (is there any other kind?) in the debates. If we are capitalists, and presidential debates are a marketplace of information about candidates, then why is the purported demand for more face-time for Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman not being met by more events like the Texas Patriots PAC?

The major reasons I can think of are:

  • Candidate schedules are too full,
  • There is not deemed sufficient legitimate interest,
  • Evil forces of the 1% are scheming away in the Dark Nexus of Communism (DNC) to ensure the weakest horse wins the GOP nomination.

But so, what? Given the low bar set by modern internet technology, why don’t we get some of the ‘second-tier’ candidates to discuss ideas and policies? Sure, the ability to attract eyeballs for a whole hour of streamed debate is going to be low, but the chance to chew on some harder topics at length would be welcome. Campaigns could derive fistfuls of short clips that would help get Americans talking about something more substantial than the latest random charges against candidate X.

What say ye?

Update: linked at That Mr. G Guy.

9 comments

  4. […] Smitty from TOM has a stellar idea for the folks who complain about the MSM’s lack of coverage of lower tier candidates. Perhaps some of the bigger Conservative bloggers could hold their own debate and invite the lower tier candidates to debate on internet live streams. There is substantial butt-hurt in the blogs about how how candidates X, Y, and Z are getting short shrift (is there any other kind?) in the debates. If we are capitalists, and presidential debates are a marketplace of information about candidates, then why is the purported demand for more face-time for Santorum, Bachmann, Paul, and Huntsman not being met by more events like the Texas Patriots PAC? […]

  5. It’s definitely the way to go, Smitty.

    The problem is that people equate “watching live” with “interest.”  In reality, these debates are more like podcasts.  I’ve seen most of them without turning on my TV.  I just don’t have to wade through the insignificant parts.

    How?  By watching clips put forth at various sites (like TheRightScoop) and reading transcripts (which are much, much faster than waiting for the slow grind of video).  These are all value-added bits of information, too.  Sure, they come with bias attached, but the comments section handles that just fine.

    So we should put on the debates, with or without audience, and upload them for the bloggers and pundits to look through.

    It’s like mining for gold.  We’d get the choicest nuggets that way.

  8. I do agree there is little point whining about the way debates are conducted as long as we meekly allow the media to assert full control over them, from format to scheduling to rules to panelists and moderators to broadcast technicalities.

    But the complaining about the short shrift given Huntsman, Santorum, Bachmann, and Paul is useless in any case.  They have been in the debates so far, all 237 of them, and have had the chance to make their case in far greater proportion than their actual demonstrated support (Bachmann and Paul showed some signs of double-digit support earlier, and did get more time in the debates then).

    If they ever break back into double digits, they should be invited back, but it’s time to winnow the field a bit, and only four have any practical chance of winning the nomination and everybody knows it.  Debates should include Romney, Cain, Gingrich, and Perry, and the rest should take a hike – including the “media personalities” on the stage.

    Interestingly, the first usage of “short shrift” was the brief time allotted to condemned men to make their confessions before execution.

Comments are closed.