Ditch The 'Debates' In Favor of Real Debates

Thank Goodness for Tom Brokaw. Without him, a debate might actually have broken out in Nashville. We can't have that, can we? By cutting off Barack Obama and allowing John McCain to get his attacks in unanswered, and by asking his own silly questions, Brokaw helped build a compelling case for ditching the current debate format.

First, it was Jim Lehrer, who did his best Dr. Phil imitation while asking Obama and McCain to look at one another. Who cares if the candidates look at one another? On the Senate floor, senators address their comments to the presiding officer, not to each other. Perhaps he forgot to ask them to give each other a hug.

Then Gwen Ifill let the vice presidential debate get away from her, while asking whether the greater threat is a nuclear Iran or an unstable Pakistan. Finally, we had Brokaw, MSNBC's ambassador to the McCain campaign, acting as school marm/timekeeper when it suited him, preventing actual discussion from breaking out while bending the rules by asking about the non-existent issue of the Social Security time bomb.

Heaven knows what Bob Schieffer will drag out next week when this series comes to its merciful end. Forget trying to figure out which candidate won or lost. It's the American public that lost.

How far have we come? In the first famous debates, 150 years ago, Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln debated across Illinois in the 1858 election for the U.S. Senate. The format was quite rigorous. The first speaker talked for 60 minutes. The second speaker talked for 90 minutes. The first speaker then had 30 minutes to reply. In 1960, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon talked for eight minutes in opening remarks. Now, in order to shield the public from the ignorance of modern candidates, we restrict statements to a couple of minutes, and an answer to 90 seconds, with "discussion" of about one minute.

We should also forget about calling these events "debates." In 1960, the first moderator, CBS Newsman Howard K. Smith, called the goings-on a "joint appearance." He was right. In 1960, with Smith as moderator, four reporters questioned the candidates, with each journalist getting in a couple of questions during the hour. The panel members were either broadcasters, or print journalists chosen by the respective campaigns from the traveling press contingent.

Today, we have a single moderator, a format which has allowed for more screwed-up debates and stupid questions than we ever thought possible. The moderators come out of the relatively small group of Prestigious News Anchors, although their prestige has surely taken a hit the past few weeks after these performances.

Here are two suggestions for reconstructing the "joint appearances." First, consider making them real, honest-to-goodness debates. You could have real one-on-one debates, a la Lincoln-Douglas, in which the speakers alternate debating a topic, perhaps even with question time thrown in.

Or you could follow an academic model, with two-person teams. It would be fabulous to see the presidential and vice presidential candidates up on the stage together, debating with their counterparts and answering questions. In each case, the campaigns would choose a debate topic or resolution, with each side taking turns and each candidate required to speak for 10 minutes or so, with perhaps a question time thrown in.

There could be more than one topic per evening, so that each time could back the resolution (also known as the affirmative team) and one could oppose (known as the negative). Examples of topics: Resolved: that the deregulation of the U.S. financial system has led to the current financial crisis. Or: Resolved: The U.S. should withdraw troops from Iraq in 16 months.

There are a couple of variations on this format. The candidates could have a team partner who is a subject matter expert, rather than the other part of the ticket. You could play with the time limits for speeches and questions. Whatever the format, the agreement should be made public, and not governed by secret 30-page memos that look like the contracts rock stars have for their performances and dressing rooms. (Note: this deal supposedly covered how each candidate was supposed to address the other. Presumably, McCain's characterization of "that one" to Obama is breach of contract.)

At heart, a format like this takes the moderator totally out of the debate, except to be a timekeeper, while allowing for a real interchange and in-depth discussion of the issue. The big advantage is that there will be no working of the refs as happened before the Ifill debate, nor suspicious about the political leanings of the moderators, as happened with Brokaw and will happen with Schieffer, whose brother was named an ambassador by President Bush.

Should that format be too boring or restrictive, we could really advance the debate format into the current cable age. In either single-candidate debates, or team debates, the questioners would be identified as coming from each side of the spectrum. Thus, a panel of Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow would question one time, while a Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity would do another. A moderator/timekeeper/peacekeeper would of course be required. Perhaps NFL referee Ed Hochuli would be available.

Follow Art Brodsky on Twitter: www.twitter.com/artbrodsky

Comments

[FarOutFish]

Ah the quadrennial “Lets have real debates” issue. Like Sports illustrated Swimsuit edition comes out every year. Considering it’s content, not often enough for some viewers. Fortunately we only have to suffer through “The Great Debate” editorial every four years. Taint happening McGee! The public, accustomed to MTV quick cuts, would never sit through an hour and half long speech by a politician, less so two speeches back to back. A Lincoln-Douglas style debate would draw ratings lower than the “Watch the Grass grow” channel after the first half-hour.

The second problem there is no politician alive who knows how to deliver oratory in the grand tradition of William Jennings Bryan. That takes knowledge of the language, facts and the ability to move the audience. Obama sometimes comes close, but the days of the “Great Debate” are long gone.

[violettefemme]

I'd like to see the moderator be able to cut off their microphones when their time is up. No pleading, no talking over the time limit....adhere to the standards or be cut off mid-sentence.

Donate early and often, OBAMA-BIDEN 08!

[caterpol]

"Finally, we had Brokaw, MSNBC's ambassador to the McCain campaign, acting as school marm/timekeeper when it suited him, preventing actual discussion from breaking out while bending the rules by asking about the non-existent issue of the Social Security time bomb..."

This is the part of your article that resonates most with me. Beyond Brokaw, it's the framing of the questions in these debates that bother me most.

I would rather hear the candidates view on the overall TOPIC (as it pertains to the fears/hopes of Americans) rather than be forced to answer a made-up, one-sided position. It's the same thing as asking a candidate "when did you stop beating your wife?"

Give them some rope and maybe we'll have an actual discussion about their particular world/political views.

[NoSillyName]

Bring back DUELS!

[bronceye]

I really like Bob Schiefer. However, his questions tend to run in the "warm and fuzzy" region. He likes to ask questions like-do you love your wife and mother?

[NoSillyName]

I love Bob. Remember when he was the "fill in" anchor and started the trend of asking questions of reporters in the field instead of simply moving to the next story when the report ended?

[jah2008]

I want a real debate. I'm an Obama supporter, but I want Nader and Barr up there too. Democrats and Republicans shouldn't be the only ones to have monopoly on debates and elections. And I'd like all of them to just go at it. The only thing the moderator should do is not let one person dominate the air time by intervening when it gets out of hand, otherwise, it should be a free-flowing format.

[LittleGirl]

I've heard so many reports from the Media that undecided voters use the debates to determine who they will vote for. In this internet age, that's just irresponsible and lazy that they haven't done their due diligence yet. What is taking them so long? This has been the longest running election season so far and if you don't know who you are voting for now, you're either a liar or lazy. (And lets get the VP picks out of the way much earlier).

The debates were a joke and living in Germany I have to get up at 3am to watch them LIVE. I can't believe how much sleep I've missed out on because of these so called debates. If you can't put two candidates on the stage (please let them sit down) for 2 hours for indepth issues like what we have now, then I'm just wasting my time setting the alarm.
Why were most of the questions in the second debate repeated from the first. Where were the issues about immigration, women's pay, job creation and what the plan is to keep our borders safe? Why weren't those questions allowed? And forget those time limits. Let's get to the bottom of the issues.

[NotMcCain]

I have to compliment the Commission for TRYING to get the most fair journalists they could that were acceptable to both campaigns. (I guess PRINT journalists would just be too exotic for television).

Lehrer and Ifill are competent and fair, though Ifill in particular allowed herself to be restrained by the rules McCain insisted on.

They probably thought Brokaw would be in that tradition, too, but he wasn't. BROKAW was the one who really ruined it all (other than McCain's insistence on a constipated format). He had the opportunity to bring some energy into all this by letting real people ask interesting and unpredictable questions.

Instead, he chose to shut the process down, not risking anything unusual for fear McCain would blow it.

Brokaw should be blasted for what he did at the debate--so biased against Obama, so personally gutting the heart and soul of a "townhall" style.

He was a disgrace to journalism, but I think the Commission is doing the best they can with the limited pool of acceptable tv journalists they have to choose from--and the fearful McCain campaign which has to constrain every format as much as possible.

[Whinger]

Debates should be a polite free for all on the issues causing hardship to thousands of Americans!

Not these mini speeches and point scoring exercises, everyone should place their cards on the table!

[cnimmo]

If you still aren't going to include third party candidates in your "real" debates, then perhaps it should be these candidates who ask the questions? After all, that's the role that the MSM would like to confine them to - raising issues.

But if there's one candidate who could really make a case for ninety minutes, that would be Ralph Nader.

[brainuser]

Watch "Abe Lincoln in Illinois" by cutting to the Lincoln-Douglas debate. Think we'll ever see that type of debate again?

[ChartreuseMuse]

The debates as controlled by the "Commission" definitely perpetuate a fraud on the American people. It doesn't matter who moderates or what their biases are.
Third party candidates are not allowed to participate, no matter how many ballot lines they attain. That's the biggest farce going! Think about it- we're sacrificing the lives of our dear citizen soldiers in Iraq to what, bring democracy to that nation! or so they say! And what kind of democracy do we have here at home to hold up as some great prize? A total, scripted, strangled, fraud!
And you voters who continue to ignore this fact and blindly vote for the continuation of this system are at best, accessories to the crime.
I'm sorry, I've been lectured to about the "wasting" of my vote when I cast it for my chosen third party candidate once too often! And this week, after a $700 billion bailout whereas the head of AIG just got rehired at $1 million PER MONTH, can we honestly say that the two-party stranglehold on our political system really works for us???
Give me a break and the benefit of a brain - vote third party and make our politicians work to earn our votes!!!

[InofTouch]

I laugh that conlusion about Schieffer to Bush as if your trying to make a connection al la Obama to Ayers

and sound to me your working the refs as well as the candidate but what do I know, I'm just a voter

[Harmony1812]

I would like to see a them just sit together with no moderator except to encourage them to speak. See who talks first. We could keep score of talking points. Whoever uses the most talking points loses. Perhaps a Jeopardy style Q & A segment. Maybe old fashioned arm wrestling. I would also like to see the potential first ladies debate. Hey, people would watch.

[Betsy]

"The moderators come out of the relatively small group of Prestigious News Anchors, although their prestige has surely taken a hit the past few weeks after these performances."

I agree with your observation. These are the same people we see day after day. Brokaw and Schieffer worship the ground McCain walks on. We call that a stacked deck in my neck of the woods.

Gwen Ifill should have stopped Palin in her tracks when she announced that she wasn't going to answer her question. I would have put pain on the spot and asked her, "Why did you agree to a debate?" "What are you afraid of?"

Speaking of Palin......The election is 27 days away and McCain refuses to allow a running mate for the 2nd highest office in the country to speak to the press. "Hmmm, why all of the secrecy?" "What are you hiding from the public, McCain?"

Someone should remind McCain, "This is the way we conduct elections in America." "The voters have a right to hear from the candidates.

We let these politicians squander the lives of our loved ones in senseless wars, lie to our faces, and empty our pocketbooks, so why would a little thing like botched debating bother anyone?