There's also the problem of the audience. When they cheer or boo, they skew the debate towards crowd pleasers and populist, specially when you try address something controversial in a nuanced way.
I recently watched the Argentinian presidential election debate. I was surprised by how much better it is than the US mess. Here's how it worked: Everyone gets a set time to talk about a topic (selected by a third party). All other candidate's mics are off. Every candidate has 5 chances to ask/comment about what another candidate said by using a button, so no one interrupts or talks over anyone else. Everyone waits their turn. Also, the moderators were brutal when it came to keeping time and cutting mics for anyone that went over. Isaac, I recommend you give it a check. Happy to help if you need some translation.
After watching, I have once again confirmed I enjoy Tangle because it’s an echo chamber of what I believe. Everything has gone nutty, but there are sensible solutions that could be implemented, just those in power choose not to do so for reasons I assume are related to greed, fear of change, or apathy. I blame both the democratic and republican parties. These are really their opportunities to pitch their platforms and allow their constituents to debate the party platform. But at every level, especially the front-runner blowing them off, this fails and leaves us with petty bickering on topics that don’t matter and I feel dumber for having watched it. Great video as always!
All this sounds great. The thing is, these debates, like most everything else on 24/7 “news” channels, is an entertainment show. They don’t care to have good debates. They want sound bites for their other shows. We’ll never have coherent debates because they care about ratings more than providing something useful.
Yeah I was thinking this, with Roger Ailes words ringing in my head. Maybe they should be hosted/produced by a publicly funded broadcaster? Not my usual go to answer but may be more effective in this case
Good vid and I wholeheartedly agree with all you said except spending debate time talking about things they agree on. The whole purpose of a debate is to draw distinctions to help each voter choose based on the differences that matter most to them.
The debate format is a legacy system that may have out lived its usefulness. Do we need or even want mainstream media personalities moderating the debates? They have a vested interest in ratings more than vetting candidates. Candidates take weeks preparing one liners and canned responses. Is that helpful. Thanks to the internet, I can know more about a candidate than ever before. The debates only reward good performances which may not translate to good policy decisions.
It's been a while since I've watched it, but your ideas seems pretty close to the one shown in the Aaron Sorkin show Newsroom. I always liked the way it was presented in that show because it would actually be informative for viewers, and yes I know it will most likely not happen with politics the way it currently is.
Don’t you think that if the networks were interested in presenting factual information to the public, they would have already implemented fact checking, and for that matter, several sweeping organizational changes?
I love it. Our political process has become a circus, so why not lean into it and make the debates a competition show. Cast the interrupters in darkness. Allow the bets behaved debaters to determine the order of closing statements. Have a fact checking god voice that booms over the stage chiding the candidates for their falsehoods.
lol its not broken. can't blame the game for this one brotits., a debate just doesn't work if you're inept from the gate cuz a debate is the sum of its participants & if they cant delegate themselves, you're nuts if you think they can delegate 330+ million people .. but thats been clear for decades tbh and its only getting clearer
I remember once being on a panel on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show, where the producer stopped taping in the middle of a segment and said that we were agreeing too much. She wanted more argument, more interruptions, more energy. We had to start the show all over again. As a veteran of hundreds of talk shows, I soon concluded that, if they pulled off a show where nobody got to finish a sentence, they'd feel like they did their job and provided good entertainment. Ratings was the goal, and any dissemination of actual ideas and information was gravy. I wonder if there is still that mentality lurking in the subconscious of these debate producers. Hopefully, the negative feedback they get will wake them up.
There's also the problem of the audience. When they cheer or boo, they skew the debate towards crowd pleasers and populist, specially when you try address something controversial in a nuanced way.
Yes! Definitely can’t understate the influence of this
I recently watched the Argentinian presidential election debate. I was surprised by how much better it is than the US mess. Here's how it worked: Everyone gets a set time to talk about a topic (selected by a third party). All other candidate's mics are off. Every candidate has 5 chances to ask/comment about what another candidate said by using a button, so no one interrupts or talks over anyone else. Everyone waits their turn. Also, the moderators were brutal when it came to keeping time and cutting mics for anyone that went over. Isaac, I recommend you give it a check. Happy to help if you need some translation.
After watching, I have once again confirmed I enjoy Tangle because it’s an echo chamber of what I believe. Everything has gone nutty, but there are sensible solutions that could be implemented, just those in power choose not to do so for reasons I assume are related to greed, fear of change, or apathy.
I blame both the democratic and republican parties. These are really their opportunities to pitch their platforms and allow their constituents to debate the party platform. But at every level, especially the front-runner blowing them off, this fails and leaves us with petty bickering on topics that don’t matter and I feel dumber for having watched it.
Great video as always!
Another great segment but my favorite part was the cut-aways 😂
Us too!
All this sounds great. The thing is, these debates, like most everything else on 24/7 “news” channels, is an entertainment show. They don’t care to have good debates. They want sound bites for their other shows. We’ll never have coherent debates because they care about ratings more than providing something useful.
Yeah I was thinking this, with Roger Ailes words ringing in my head. Maybe they should be hosted/produced by a publicly funded broadcaster? Not my usual go to answer but may be more effective in this case
Thank you for another great video!
How about adding that each party requires all candidates running, to participate? If they refuse, they won't be on the ballot.
Sorry for my sarcasm here but if you ask for a spectacle don't be surprised when you get a circus.
I love your ideas! If only they would let you be the commentator 👍
Good vid and I wholeheartedly agree with all you said except spending debate time talking about things they agree on. The whole purpose of a debate is to draw distinctions to help each voter choose based on the differences that matter most to them.
The debate format is a legacy system that may have out lived its usefulness. Do we need or even want mainstream media personalities moderating the debates? They have a vested interest in ratings more than vetting candidates. Candidates take weeks preparing one liners and canned responses. Is that helpful.
Thanks to the internet, I can know more about a candidate than ever before. The debates only reward good performances which may not translate to good policy decisions.
Love the idea of real time fact checking. How are we not already doing this? Although I'm sure large groups of people wouldn't trust it anyway.
It's been a while since I've watched it, but your ideas seems pretty close to the one shown in the Aaron Sorkin show Newsroom. I always liked the way it was presented in that show because it would actually be informative for viewers, and yes I know it will most likely not happen with politics the way it currently is.
Don’t you think that if the networks were interested in presenting factual information to the public, they would have already implemented fact checking, and for that matter, several sweeping organizational changes?
Why should any special attention be directed towards “trans“ members of the legislature, and how they dress?
I love it. Our political process has become a circus, so why not lean into it and make the debates a competition show. Cast the interrupters in darkness. Allow the bets behaved debaters to determine the order of closing statements. Have a fact checking god voice that booms over the stage chiding the candidates for their falsehoods.
bro will you run one day. like please.
The Newsroom S1E9
lol its not broken. can't blame the game for this one brotits., a debate just doesn't work if you're inept from the gate cuz a debate is the sum of its participants & if they cant delegate themselves, you're nuts if you think they can delegate 330+ million people .. but thats been clear for decades tbh and its only getting clearer
Commenting for the algorithm 😊
I remember once being on a panel on the Sally Jesse Raphael Show, where the producer stopped taping in the middle of a segment and said that we were agreeing too much. She wanted more argument, more interruptions, more energy. We had to start the show all over again.
As a veteran of hundreds of talk shows, I soon concluded that, if they pulled off a show where nobody got to finish a sentence, they'd feel like they did their job and provided good entertainment. Ratings was the goal, and any dissemination of actual ideas and information was gravy. I wonder if there is still that mentality lurking in the subconscious of these debate producers. Hopefully, the negative feedback they get will wake them up.