Media killed the presidential debate  

All establishment media outlets appear to be calling for a series of debates before this fall’s presidential election. News organizations always seem to want sensational spectacle, food fights, or some kind of “bloodshed” to highlight the role of activists in setting the news agenda, regardless of whether it’s in the public interest or not. It looks like

There was a time when journalists served as the eyes and ears of the public, observing and reporting on what was happening around the world. Instead, self-promoting media organizations now want reporters themselves to participate in creating and fabricating storylines that they can report as “news.”

Today’s media industry tends to involve itself in all national issues, as a group of news organizations have recently done. issued a letter He called on presidential candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump to participate in a fall televised debate. The statement was filed by more than a dozen major media outlets, including ABC, CBS, Associated Press, NewsNation, NBC, NPR, Fox News, and more.

It is notable that this recommendation did not include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or Jill Stein. Someone who also wants to be president. They may actually have some unique ideas that don’t surface in the Biden-Trump exchange. Of course, in the eyes of the Commission on Presidential Debates, these third-party candidates are not considered. This is because the Commission on Presidential Debates limits the field of rhetoric with extremely arbitrary language. “Bipartisan Candidate Selection Criteria.”

The letter was full of hallowed hyperbole about how televised presidential debates “have a rich tradition in American democracy” and allow candidates to engage in a “competition of ideas.” . The statement concludes by asserting that “there is simply no substitute for candidates discussing their vision for our nation’s future with each other and before the American people.”

In reality, these extravagant television shows are not real debates anyway, but rather dueling press conferences where media panelists stake their claim to being on the show. Sadly, journalistic hosts are rarely up to the task. Kristen Welker and chris wallace In 2020.

The debate format is necessarily designed for a television audience with short attention spans, allowing candidates to fully explain and nuance complex issues such as the economy, border security, and international tensions. There is almost nothing you can do. But the media establishment loves the soundbite atmosphere of these bogus arguments, along with the circus-related jump reviews and clicks.

Television is a medium for conveying emotions. It’s hard to force rational thought into a video monitor. The last thing this country needs is for political discussions to become even more strident and overly emotional. A debate between Biden and Trump is not going to be enlightening on any level, given that Americans already know everything they want to know about the two of them. the most flawed Candidates in the nation’s history.

If the Biden vs. Trump debate were to be televised, voters and the world at large would be witnessing a series of consultant-driven cheap talk, hyperbole, angry rhetoric and incoherence. –It is hard to believe that this is the “competition of ideas” that is being promoted as the media calls for debates. This display of disorder will only demoralize an already disaffected electorate seeking sanity in the political process.

Historically, there is little evidence that televised presidential debates have evolved into elections. Perhaps it was largely because of Gerald that Jimmy Carter was pushed to victory in the 1976 Carter-Ford debate. Ford’s false statements about Soviet control in Eastern Europe. As it turns out, the results probably weren’t good.Because the debate doesn’t matter much in the larger electoral context, Trump skipped After all of this year’s Republican primary debates, he was still on track to win his party’s nomination. Biden generally the worst debater Although he didn’t take the stage at the 2020 Democratic primary debate (with the possible exception of Kamala Harris), he easily won his party’s nomination anyway.

Recent essay The Columbia Journalism Review feared that if no debates were held this election year, the practice might never return. That’s an unfounded fear. The problem with today’s debate is its format and its hollow nature, not to mention the 2024 candidates themselves. Pausing presidential debates would give the public a chance to restructure the process and make it more substantive.

With both Biden and Trump out of the running for the 2028 election, new party candidates are sure to jump at the chance to appear on the debate stage. In fact, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (Republican) and California Governor Gavin Newsom (Democrat) have already discussed it.

For years, the president’s politics have already been reduced to social media outbursts, campaign stunts and countless horse-race votes of little consequence. The debate was part of that sad rhetorical exercise. If Biden and Trump eventually meet in a debate, it should be for their own reasons, not the claims of an intrusive media.

Jeffrey M. McCall He is a media critic and communications professor at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, newspaper reporter, and political media consultant.