• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Are Political Debates Useful?

CTListener said:
Fox's Phoenix affiliate shows every Trump rally on YouTube, with a wide open, unmoderated chat running alongside that is often more entertaining and jaw-droppingly outrageous as the president's remarks. Diehard Trump fans mixing it up with outnumbered liberals, with various fringe players rooting each side on -- unreconstructed Maoists from the left, neo-Nazis from the right, and of course a healthy helping of folks whose only contribution to the "discussion" is New Testament verses.
Click to expand...


Not shocking for at least Fox Phoenix to do that though given the local demos.
 
Debates are useful, and even necessary. One of these people could be the next President. The way they answer and react in a series of debates may not tell you everything about policies they may carry out if elected, but a debate tells a lot about the person -- who may, if elected, have access to the nuclear football, among other things.

What bothers me is when radio refuses to carry the primary debates. Even NPR (or at least the local affiliate) didn't carry a couple of the Democratic ones this time around, which was a surprise to me
 
boombox4 said:
What bothers me is when radio refuses to carry the primary debates.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is most of the stations that are likely to carry them are conservative talk stations. There are no Republican debates, and the Democratic debates have become piñatas to those radio stations. Kind of an unusual situation.
 
boombox4 said:
Debates are useful, and even necessary. One of these people could be the next President. The way they answer and react in a series of debates may not tell you everything about policies they may carry out if elected, but a debate tells a lot about the person -- who may, if elected, have access to the nuclear football, among other things.
Click to expand...

If that were true novices would never be elected. Someone who looks good in front of a camera and is quick on his/her feet (thinking Pete here) is an obvious debate winner BUT he has arguably less experience than anyone of the other candidates. It works the other way too.
 
No. Not in the their current form. It's a complete waste of time. It's a media controlled circus free free for all. It's designed to get quick soundbites the media can use for their agenda. They get to decide who qualifies by conducting their own polls etc.

Until we have Lincoln Douglas style debates, they will never be positively conducive to having a meaningful dialog that helps the democratic process in our Republic.
 
BDBopper said:
Until we have Lincoln Douglas style debates, they will never be positively conducive to having a meaningful dialog that helps the democratic process in our Republic.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. Part of my English class way back in high school was devoted to debating. What's airing now and being called debates is not even close.
 
There is another debate tonight with 7 candidates still in it, which is still too many. It still looks like we're still going to end up with another sorry choice no matter who comes out on top.
 
landtuna said:
Absolutely correct. Part of my English class way back in high school was devoted to debating. What's airing now and being called debates is not even close.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I was in the debate clubs in High School and College.

A debate was done, often by a team, arguing the pros and cons of a point of view. There were two debaters or teams as a rule, and they defended their perspective and attempted to null the opposing point of view. A debate covered one subject, although the theme might have multiple aspects.

Today, a "debate" consists of asking a different question to each candidate, with limited contrarian responses before a totally different question is asked of a different candidate.

A true debate would ask each candidate the same question and allow responses from all, equally, before moving on to a new subject. That is not what is done today.

What today is called a "debate" is basically a mass interview session with a bunch of people who all want to outshine the rest. But it is not a debate.

Of course, some will say that the definition of "debate" has changed. That is just BS. What we have now is essentially an effort to herd cats.
 
Last edited:
DavidEduardo said:
What today is called a "debate" is basically a mass interview session with a bunch of people who all want to outshine the rest. But it is not a debate.
Click to expand...

It's a TV show. That's what it's meant to be. Lincoln & Douglass didn't debate on TV. Kennedy & Nixon changed the political debate in 1960. After that, it was all about looking good, hair & makeup, and "gotcha." We don't elect statesmen any more. We elect TV stars.
 
I remember the TV debate between Nixon and JFK in 1960 but I don't remember any televised debates before that - Ike vs Stephenson in 1952 and again in 1956. We didn't get our first TV until 1954 but I don't remember hearing about any debates in school either. I do remember the political conventions on TV (probably in 1956).

Did debates actually take place before 1952 in the modern era?
 
landtuna said:
I remember the TV debate between Nixon and JFK in 1960 but I don't remember any televised debates before that - Ike vs Stephenson in 1952 and again in 1956. We didn't get our first TV until 1954 but I don't remember hearing about any debates in school either. I do remember the political conventions on TV (probably in 1956).

Did debates actually take place before 1952 in the modern era?
Click to expand...

Well, we can go back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates... but modern debates were born when TV became a mass medium... that occurred some years after the lifting of the TV licensing freeze in the early 50's.

So the '52 debate was too early, Eisenhower was a shoe-in in 1956. So 1960 was the first chance for a real TV national debate.

Many said Nixon lost because on B&W TV, he looked fatigued, shadowy and sweaty.

Of course, he remained "shadowy" for another decade or so.
 
landtuna said:
Very informative.....and absolutely on point. I think I'll watch Monster Trucks tonight. :)
Click to expand...

Interesting, if somewhat simplified. Worth reading in the context of this year's debates.

And the conclusion that the "debates" do not reveal anything about a candidate's ability to govern is very accurate.
 
RadioPatrol said:
I swear sometime whenever a debate is announced for president or to a certain extent governors in battleground states, I always want to see cable news outlets try to hype up the debate like it's a Pay-Per-View event for boxing.
Click to expand...

Or worse: WWE or UFC.
 
So tonight was another example of how debates are entertainment, and therefore not useful.

Certain candidates go in as attack dogs. Others are still trying to take the high road.

If you're watching to be entertained, the attack dogs are more entertaining.

But it doesn't help if you want to know who will be the better president.
 
Tonight’s debate was a cluster-f. Not useful at all. Terrible control by the moderator. CBS should be embarrassed. Too many of these imo. Not doing the dems any good. I am less hopeful anyone of them can beat the incumbent.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom