I think I saw the future of televised political debates this past week on CNN. I had not watched the past two political debates on this TV outlet before, and it was a completely different experience than the other channels. This was a hyper-version of a TV debate. Turbo-charged. The screen, in addition to the actual debate participants, is filled with information. On the left and right sides of the screen they have boxes where various talking heads can cast points as the debate is in progress, and at the bottom of the screen there is a graph responding to a specially selected group of "undecided" voters -- the up and down movements of the chart, resembling some kind of EKG, show their feelings to every sentence that is spoken. One color for Male. One color for Female. Obama says something and points register on the screen. Paul Begala liked the comment. William Bennett was unmoved. And so the debate went on. At one point I realized I was no longer listening to what was being said by the candidates. All the bells and whistles had my attention. Who was going to win was my focus now. Content be damned. Little beeps on the screen as points were added or subtracted. And that graph, rising and falling. Half way through the debate it seemed it was a tie based on the points as I counted them. "What if there is a tie?" I thought. "Will there be overtime? Maybe sudden death?" I was completely hooked. This was the sporting event version of a political debate, and it was alive. There was momentum. There was going to be a winner and a loser by the end of the debate. No need to wait until later for the verdict to be determined. No need to digest what the candidates just said. No need for reflection. Instant winner or loser, in real time.
Television has never found an idea it can't exploit. It doesn't matter what it is. Anything that can be made more lively, is more lively. Tweak it, make it more fun, and we will watch. And we will like it. And we will justify it.
Some say we are in the early days of the American version of the fall of the Roman Empire. Therefore, is television the electronic version of the Roman Circus? The events at the Coliseum might be cruel and inhumane, but those leaving the arena sure had a good time. Taste and consequence be damned. "That Christian sure was fast, best I've seen in weeks! Let's go to the baths." But the CNN debate innovations are just the beginning I think. Maybe the real debate event will adopt some of those CNN bells and whistles. Include them in the process to enhance the drama. Maybe even add a truth panel that rings a buzzer when a candidate says something false. Depending on the degree of misinformation, that will determine the point deductions. Buzzers going off have always added fun to quiz shows in the past and refs have used them for dramatic effect during sporting events. There are so many possible improvements that can be made. Content? Forget it. There's too much fun to be had in flashy presentation. After all, the band played on while the Titanic sank.
Only in the movies.
These days, I listen to the debate on NPR, then watch Olbermann for analysis.
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.linktv.org/
http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/genx.php?name=home
http://lauraflanders.firedoglake.com/
You've hit the nail on the head with this question. Perhaps, you should read 'Beyond the Rubicon' for starters!
Really, we do the same. We tune in to C-Span much more often. I am intrigued in what the country is thinking by the call-ins. I listen to all views and subject matter. Makes for a more rounded analysis in processing world information as well as state side studies of thought.
What is truly disturbing about the "CNN Graph" is that it emphasizes the point that what truly matters is the impact that a candidate's statement has the moment it is uttered. The immediate interpretation of the words becomes bigger than what was actually said.
All of which makes me wonder: Whatever happened to thoughtful, reflective decision-making?
Don't misunderstand. For political junkies like pretty much everyone that goes to a site like The Huffington Post, obviously there is interest in polls, trends, etc. But the idea that:
1) A small group turns dials based upon their instant reaction to a comment.
2) The results are immediately broadcast to the nation.
3) The comment or the results are given no context
is something that should bother you. The group is more or less randomly chosen (e.g., a group of independent voters), handed a dial, and told to react to candidate statements.
One party's faithful will see some graph reactions as justifications and other reactions as heresy. The other side will see the exact opposite from the same graph.
The only thing sillier than the reaction graph during a debate? Watching the spin doctors trying to declare their candidate the "winner" immediately after the debate.
It's a common observation that we're getting more demanding of volume, faster, and thus dumber, but to me it's a trade-off like most changes and sea changes. I think we're much more agile watchers, much more able to handle the simultaneous, absorb vignetted stories, and synthesize information. There are up and downsides to being hit with the zeitgeist meters at the same time you're getting the information.
At the same time, this appetite for multiplicity should be able to encompass, rather than eclipse, a slower, more reflective, more surgical understanding and analysis.
I have lived in Europe for more than 10 years now. It is hard to even begin to try to explain how much US reporting has deteriorated. Sometimes when watching a clip of the US news, I am uncertain whether it is real news or a new parody for a few minutes.
The way Jon Stewart has called the media to task is about the only thing that keeps me going.
Excuse me, I need to throw things at Lou Dobbs...