Unsound Bites (Thomas Sowell)

The so-called "debates" among Republican presidential aspirants are classic examples of the media spreading misunderstanding instead of enlightenment. The ancient admonition, "With all you're getting, get understanding" has been replaced in the media by, "With all you're getting, get sound bites — and, if possible, 'gotcha' sound bites."

After all the media hype over Governor Rick Perry's having called Social Security "a Ponzi scheme," viewers are no more informed than before as to what specifically is a Ponzi scheme, what are the objections to such schemes, and whether those same objections apply to Social Security.

Even if such questions were answered, we would still not have weighed the alternatives to Social Security. Serious issues like that cannot be covered in sound bites or with "gotcha" questions from the media.

The whole "debate" format, with far more candidates than have any realistic chance of getting the nomination, means that serious issues cannot get serious attention, because there is just not enough time with so many people. Most of what we learn from those "debates" is who is glib and fast on his feet.

We already have a president who is glib and fast on his feet. But he is a disaster when it comes to the economy, among other things. Do we need more of the same from Republicans?

We need leaders who have thought through many complex issues facing the country, not leaders with flashy words and snappy comebacks.

A real debate between two candidates, such as the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates in the 19th century, could bring out what the fundamental differences between the candidates are— and in the process enlighten the public on issues that affect their lives. But the short attention span of today's population means that something like the Lincoln-Douglas debates would have a very small audience.

What are called candidate "debates" today are questions from media journalists, with the time allotted for the answers being too short for anything other than quick and superficial responses. Yet, with so many aspiring candidates on stage and a fixed time limit on how long the program will be broadcast, it is hard to see how there could be a more thoughtful discussion within the confines of this particular format.

What would be far more informative would be to have an hour-long interview with each of the candidates who has some serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. That would cut the number down to two or three, and allow us to get some real idea about how deeply those two or three have thought through the weighty issues facing this country.

Not all interviewers are like the media hosts who conducted the first two candidate "debates." Interviewers like Brian Lamb or Charlie Rose — people who try to bring out what the person who is being interviewed has to say, rather than trying to trap them with "gotcha" questions — could get a lot of useful information out of a candidate in an hour.

That would leave the public with something to really think about, rather than just some catchy words and emotional phrases. We might even elect a president who knows what he is talking about, instead of someone with a talent for using rhetoric and striking poses.

How can we get away from the straitjacket of the current media "debate" format?

That format may serve the interests of the media by producing a fast-paced program, covering every candidate with even a remote chance of winning. But it does not serve the interest of the political party whose candidates are all diminished by being displayed in such large numbers, including many who are obviously just along for the ride, and in a setting where their attacks on each other turn them into a circular firing squad.

Either each political party can refuse to sanction "debates" in this format or the leading contenders can refuse to take part. Viable candidates are going to get covered in the media, whether they are part of a cattle show or not — and focussing on viable candidates can end the time-wasting distraction of the also-rans.

What are called candidate "debates" today are questions from media journalists, with the time allotted for the answers being too short for anything other than quick and superficial responses. Yet, with so many aspiring candidates on stage and a fixed time limit on how long the program will be broadcast, it is hard to see how there could be a more thoughtful discussion within the confines of this particular format. What would be far more informative would be to have an hour-long interview with each of the candidates who has some serious chance of winning the Republican nomination. That would cut the number down to two or three, and allow us to get some real idea about how deeply those two or three have thought through the weighty issues facing this country. Not all interviewers are like the media hosts who conducted the first two candidate "debates." Interviewers like Brian Lamb or Charlie Rose — people who try to bring out what the person who is being interviewed has to say, rather than trying to trap them with "gotcha" questions — could get a lot of useful information out of a candidate in an hour. That would leave the public with something to really think about, rather than just some catchy words and emotional phrases. We might even elect a president who knows what he is talking about, instead of someone with a talent for using rhetoric and striking poses.
How can we get away from the straitjacket of the current media "debate" format?

Rush could easily do it. Rush could just interview each candidate he chose to anoint as having "some serious chance of winning the Republican nomination." It need not be on TV; if what you are actually after is substance it actually could be better on radio.
It could also be posted on YouTube . . .
There is no necessity that the interviewer but politically unaffiliated; in fact I would argue that evading political affiliation manifests a lack of candor if not outright dishonesty.

That would be a great idea. I don't think anyone is prepared to listen to the hour-long speeches of Lincoldn and Douglas, from most of our current candidates, although I could happily listen (and have!) to Alan Keyes or Thomas Sowell for an hour. However, the Lincoln-Douglas format used in high school debate competition would offer candidates of reasonable thoughtfulness an opportunity to say something useful about an issue. They could probably use a little extra time, since they're not in multiple-round competitions during a single day.

Affirmative Constructive 6 Minutes
Negative-led Cross-Examination 3 Minutes
Negative Constructive / Rebuttal 7 Minutes
Affirmative-led Cross-Examination 3 Minutes
Affirmative Rebuttal 6 Minutes
Negative Rebuttal / Crystallization 6 Minutes
Affirmative Crystallization 3 Minutes

For "affirmative" and "negative," substitute "Perry" and "Bachmann," or "Santorum" and "Gingrich" ... anyone who's willing to take a getting in some real facts and analysis. Even if it was found the candidates substantially agreed, they could still emphasize their differences with the Democrat administration or candidates.

I’m in strong agreement with Sowell on this issue.

>> Sowell: “[we don’t need] leaders with flashy words and snappy comebacks.”

For once, I’d like to hear a candidate respond to Ron Paul without the ridicule.

In response to Paul’s often detailed explanations about his controversial foreign policy views, the typical retort from another candidate usually amounts to, “Ron, you’re an idiot.” As the “snappy comebacks” fail to explain why Paul is wrong, the ignorant viewer can only rely on the information provided by Paul — the wisecrack conveys nothing other than contempt. This doesn’t help to persuade the Independents whom we need.

There’s no question that Cain and Gingrich are two adults on stage that understand Sowell’s point.

We are underestimating voters intelligence and attention span. This is an example of “the media is the message” has worked to deform the debate structure to fit a TV format.

The length of the 78RPM dictated the length (3 to 4 minutes) and thus the form of what we think a “song” should be, when songs had always been much longer or even shorter as the content required. It had nothing to do with attention span. The 45RPM, the band length on 33 1/3 RPM and the CD were conformed to this length which has caused a constriction in what we imagine a song to be.

To have longer, more thorough debates, we must get away from the structures of TV time. Either have CSPAN or Webcasts be the medium, with DVD copies distributed by the parties later. A five hour debate seems about right for eight candidates, and also for two or three final candidates. Perhaps a longer first debate could include many candidates. In the past the exclusion of candidates like Alan Keyes has done a disservice to the public. The networks can excerpt later as they please, as they do already with disinformative effect.

A second issue is that the parties should free themselves of the press and should host and run their own debates. Those entering the debate should be qualified before being admitted. Qualified means that they and their credentials have been investigated and granted a Top Secret Clearance. This clearance should be paid for by their campaigns or parties.

Documents such as birth certificates which may well contain valid information but are not originals meeting standards of Archival Quality do not qualify one for a security clearance or, indeed, even for Social Security payments. President Obama’s Birth Certificate is an example of a document not meeting basic Archival Standards which our government must enforce for its employees. This should start before the next election.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.