faboo mama's finger puke

    27 Jan 2012

    In most of today’s televised debates, reporters or audience members pose questions to the candidates, who must answer under tight time limits. In the 1858 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, there were no reporters or moderators onstage, only a timekeeper. Instead of rapid-fire questions and answers, there were long speeches. One candidate spoke for an hour, the other spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first had a half-hour rejoinder. (via Why Gingrich would lose in a debate with Obama - The Washington Post) I propose this game show style of “debate” is just one reason most people who think they know something about politics, actually don’t. These people speak in soundbites. Facts? What’s that? Truth? Not pithy enough. 

    In most of today’s televised debates, reporters or audience members pose questions to the candidates, who must answer under tight time limits. In the 1858 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, there were no reporters or moderators onstage, only a timekeeper. Instead of rapid-fire questions and answers, there were long speeches. One candidate spoke for an hour, the other spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first had a half-hour rejoinder. (via Why Gingrich would lose in a debate with Obama - The Washington Post)

    I propose this game show style of “debate” is just one reason most people who think they know something about politics, actually don’t. These people speak in soundbites. Facts? What’s that? Truth? Not pithy enough. 

    1. farmanor said: I’m not a fan of long speeches myself, but there has to be a middle ground better than what we have now. Maybe a 20-25-5 format would work; with 10 mins of intro by the moderator (including setting the topic), it would fit in a 1-hour telecast.
    2. faboomama posted this