MicroBalrog
New member
Why Bother Watching the Infomercials?
-- Watching the televised Presidential Debates is a
waste of time
by Jim Babka
It wasn't always this way, but in recent years the
highlights of the Presidential campaigns are the
infomercials.
And there's a big infomercial starting tonight - the
so-called Presidential Debates.
These aren't really "debates" in the tradition of
Lincoln-Douglas - or even Kennedy-Nixon. They're 90
minute television commercials for the presidential
campaigns - stage-managed, joint-appearances by the
front-running candidates.
The other major infomercials are the conventions.
Sure, some civically-minded folks complain that
network TV coverage-time has plummeted. But that's
because the conventions have lost their drama - and
their ratings.
* The last time Republicans had any suspense at
their convention was 1976 - Reagan v. Ford.
* The last time Democrats had any suspense at
their convention was 1980 - Kennedy v. Carter.
Major party conventions are now heavily scripted,
well-rehearsed, infomercials designed, not to choose
a nominee, but to promote the party's propaganda for
the Fall campaign.
Personally, I'd rather watch "Everybody Loves Raymond."
The nationally-televised Debates are no different.
They too are well-scripted. The two major candidates
choose the questioners, topics, and terms, including
detailed instructions about set design, where their
guy stands, etc.
This year Vernon Jordan represented Kerry. James
Baker represented Bush.
The two major party campaigns (not the media, not the
Debate Commission) emerge with a Memorandum of
Understanding, telling the Debate Commission just how
to put on their debates. This year's Memorandum
includes the following (standard) verbiage...
The parties agree that they will not (1) issue
any challenges for additional debates, (2) appear
at any other debates or adversarial forum with
any other presidential or vice presidential
candidate, or (3) accept any network air time
offers that involve a debate format or otherwise
involve the simultaneous appearance of more than
one candidate.
In other words, keep anything dramatic and
unpredictable, like minor party candidates, off the
stage.
If the Debates continue as they're presently
constituted, then I predict there will come a day
when one of the network presidents gets wise and
decides to do a highlight show, instead of cover the
whole thing live.
That network president will be pilloried by the
press. But he or she will get an edge in the ratings.
And the other networks will do likewise four years
later.
Why? Because the audience size is plummeting.
OpenDebates.org reports that viewership has declined
by 26.2 million Americans since 1992.
What was special about 1992? A third candidate (Ross
Perot) was on stage.
And those declining ratings are easy to explain.
Most Americans don't vote. More and more Americans
are figuring out that there's little substantial
difference between the major party candidates.
And to make matters worse, what the candidates say in
these debates doesn't matter, because betraying their
base once in office is hailed as "growing" in the
press.
* Conservatives voted for "no new taxes" but
George Bush the Elder signed a tax increase
anyway.
* Union members supported Clinton. They got
NAFTA.
* Bush opposed "nation-building" in the 2000
Debates, but nation-building is the largest
initiative of his presidency.
When there are only two candidates on stage, you can
bet that the viewpoints will narrow. The real debate
over issues will disappear, and in its place the
candidate's confidence, likeability, quick wit, and
other inconsequential matters will be spun and
analyzed for days following - that is unless there's
a big screw-up ("there is no Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford
administration") or a real zinger ("you're no John
Kennedy").
What won't be addressed?
DownsizeDC.org points out that several positions held
by a large plurality, if not an outright majority of
Americans will be excluded from the debates,
including...
1) Reducing the size of the federal government -
Downsizing DC.
2) Ending the occupation of Iraq promptly.
3) Repealing the Patriot Act.
4) Ending federal persecution of Medical Marijuana
patients.
5) Ending corporate welfare.
Perhaps you think there's a difference between these
candidates. The truth is they agree on far more than
they disagree.
Bush and Kerry agree that we need more government
involvement in health care, education, the
environment, and a stronger War on Terror.
And their biggest area of agreement is that they
don't want you to hear from the other four
candidates who've leapt the considerable ballot
access hurdles placed in the way of minor party
candidates.
This election - this "debate" - is about
personalities and who gets all the jobs the winning
party can deliver.
It's easy to understand why the outcome matters to
career Democrats and Republicans. But why should it
matter to you? Why should you watch these
infomercials if the issues you care about are not
being discussed?
Since a majority of Americans believe the federal
government is way too big, why should they bother
tuning in at all?
-- Watching the televised Presidential Debates is a
waste of time
by Jim Babka
It wasn't always this way, but in recent years the
highlights of the Presidential campaigns are the
infomercials.
And there's a big infomercial starting tonight - the
so-called Presidential Debates.
These aren't really "debates" in the tradition of
Lincoln-Douglas - or even Kennedy-Nixon. They're 90
minute television commercials for the presidential
campaigns - stage-managed, joint-appearances by the
front-running candidates.
The other major infomercials are the conventions.
Sure, some civically-minded folks complain that
network TV coverage-time has plummeted. But that's
because the conventions have lost their drama - and
their ratings.
* The last time Republicans had any suspense at
their convention was 1976 - Reagan v. Ford.
* The last time Democrats had any suspense at
their convention was 1980 - Kennedy v. Carter.
Major party conventions are now heavily scripted,
well-rehearsed, infomercials designed, not to choose
a nominee, but to promote the party's propaganda for
the Fall campaign.
Personally, I'd rather watch "Everybody Loves Raymond."
The nationally-televised Debates are no different.
They too are well-scripted. The two major candidates
choose the questioners, topics, and terms, including
detailed instructions about set design, where their
guy stands, etc.
This year Vernon Jordan represented Kerry. James
Baker represented Bush.
The two major party campaigns (not the media, not the
Debate Commission) emerge with a Memorandum of
Understanding, telling the Debate Commission just how
to put on their debates. This year's Memorandum
includes the following (standard) verbiage...
The parties agree that they will not (1) issue
any challenges for additional debates, (2) appear
at any other debates or adversarial forum with
any other presidential or vice presidential
candidate, or (3) accept any network air time
offers that involve a debate format or otherwise
involve the simultaneous appearance of more than
one candidate.
In other words, keep anything dramatic and
unpredictable, like minor party candidates, off the
stage.
If the Debates continue as they're presently
constituted, then I predict there will come a day
when one of the network presidents gets wise and
decides to do a highlight show, instead of cover the
whole thing live.
That network president will be pilloried by the
press. But he or she will get an edge in the ratings.
And the other networks will do likewise four years
later.
Why? Because the audience size is plummeting.
OpenDebates.org reports that viewership has declined
by 26.2 million Americans since 1992.
What was special about 1992? A third candidate (Ross
Perot) was on stage.
And those declining ratings are easy to explain.
Most Americans don't vote. More and more Americans
are figuring out that there's little substantial
difference between the major party candidates.
And to make matters worse, what the candidates say in
these debates doesn't matter, because betraying their
base once in office is hailed as "growing" in the
press.
* Conservatives voted for "no new taxes" but
George Bush the Elder signed a tax increase
anyway.
* Union members supported Clinton. They got
NAFTA.
* Bush opposed "nation-building" in the 2000
Debates, but nation-building is the largest
initiative of his presidency.
When there are only two candidates on stage, you can
bet that the viewpoints will narrow. The real debate
over issues will disappear, and in its place the
candidate's confidence, likeability, quick wit, and
other inconsequential matters will be spun and
analyzed for days following - that is unless there's
a big screw-up ("there is no Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford
administration") or a real zinger ("you're no John
Kennedy").
What won't be addressed?
DownsizeDC.org points out that several positions held
by a large plurality, if not an outright majority of
Americans will be excluded from the debates,
including...
1) Reducing the size of the federal government -
Downsizing DC.
2) Ending the occupation of Iraq promptly.
3) Repealing the Patriot Act.
4) Ending federal persecution of Medical Marijuana
patients.
5) Ending corporate welfare.
Perhaps you think there's a difference between these
candidates. The truth is they agree on far more than
they disagree.
Bush and Kerry agree that we need more government
involvement in health care, education, the
environment, and a stronger War on Terror.
And their biggest area of agreement is that they
don't want you to hear from the other four
candidates who've leapt the considerable ballot
access hurdles placed in the way of minor party
candidates.
This election - this "debate" - is about
personalities and who gets all the jobs the winning
party can deliver.
It's easy to understand why the outcome matters to
career Democrats and Republicans. But why should it
matter to you? Why should you watch these
infomercials if the issues you care about are not
being discussed?
Since a majority of Americans believe the federal
government is way too big, why should they bother
tuning in at all?
