Sign up for The Media Today, CJRâs daily newsletter.
The consensus seems to be that Tuesday nightâs presidential debate was extremely boring. Here are six viable suggestions for how the next one could be better.
Use a buzzer
Tom Brokaw was frustrated by the candidatesâ reluctance to respect the time limits to which they had previously agreed. A loud and abrasive buzzer, of the sort that signifies a shot clock violation in basketball, could help solve that problem. Whenever a candidate exceeds the time allotted for a response, he should be greeted by a resounding buzz, cutting him off in mid-sentence and making it clear that his time has expired. (The producers of the Academy Awards play music when acceptance speeches run long. But a buzz will do fine for McCain and Obama.) Although initially the candidates might be startled (we wouldnât tell them about the buzzer), theyâll soon adapt. And if they donât, well, theyâll hear about it.
Choose better questions
Tuesday nightâs debate was boring primarily because of the lame questions Tom Brokaw chose to ask. The mouth-breathers in the audience served up softballs (with a few exceptions), while Brokawâs own contributions were generally irrelevant. Who will be the next treasury secretary? Is Russia under Putin still an evil empire? Please. These are questions for a Web poll or a sophomore dorm room, not for a presidential debateâone of the three best chances Americans will have to gauge the candidatesâ intelligence and perspicacity. The next debateâs questions should be so pointed as to draw blood.
Focus on a single issue
Or two. No more. These overly broad debate mandates (foreign policy, domestic policy) lead to overly broad questions, which lead to pat, unsatisfactory answersâand the candidates can get away with them because they know that, in a matter of minutes, the moderator will switch topics. If an entire debate were to focus on, say, the economy, the candidates would be forced to actually delve into specifics and talk about ideas, not just lean on talking points and old clichĂ©s.
Three clichĂ©s and youâre out
ESPNâs sports talk show Around The Horn is pretty tiresome, but Iâve always liked the idea that moderator Tony Reali, if a guest says something overwhelmingly stupid, is able to mute the offending microphone for a few seconds. Before next Wednesday, Schieffer should compile a list of each candidateâs favorite phrasesââmaverickâ and âWashington outsiderâ for McCain, for instance, or âWall Street/Main Streetâ and âchangeâ for Obamaâand tell the candidates that they can use any variation of these phrases exactly three times during the debate. If they exceed that limit, their microphones will be muted for ten seconds. (Maybe we could also use the buzzer.) This could force the candidates to actually take care in choosing their words and deliver responses that are beyond boilerplateâor it could just result in a lot of dead air.
Eliminate the moderator
Since the moderator has been superfluous in all three debates, why not just eliminate the position and let the candidates battle it out freestyle for ninety minutes? Announce the topic at the outset and just let them go in whatever directions they choose. Sure, this could become chaotic, but I think the candidates would soon tire of insults and banter and might actually get around to something resembling a conversation.
Let each candidate bring a posse
The trouble with these one-on-one debates is that they misrepresent the actual amount of power a president holds. A president doesnât fix crises or implement policies unilaterallyâheâs merely the star player on a fairly large team, and heâs only as good as his teammates. So why not let McCain and Obama each bring three advisers and turn the evening into a team debate? Not only would this lead to more informative and comprehensive answers, it would also be truer to the actual rules of parliamentary debate. (This Lincoln-Douglas crap just isnât cutting it any more.)
Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.
