But are TV debates a good thing?
No.
Do we want them?
You shouldn't, no.
Could they go ahead without Cameron (the empty chair approach)?
Sure, but why?
All political debates do is hype the pettiness of the pretty-boy effect. The voices at the podiums may be spouting policy issues but the press and the public are only looking at the color of the ties, which side the hair is parted on and waiting for some obvious gaff about which to laugh or become incensed. Debates titillate the press/public with cosmetic minutia using up vast amounts of ink, airtime and water-cooler gossip at the expense of discussion of the difficult issues that need public education and attention.
Ultimately, these leadership debates lead to what has happened to the office of President in the good old US of A. You get pretty-boy airheads centered on superficial political and personal appearances instead of the experienced statesmen centered on resolving the complex issues facing the nation and the world. This country has not had a challenging, reformist/activist executive since forever. It’s been all status quo and political self-interest.
OK, that’s not totally the fault of such debates. The real culprit has been the wholesale abandonment of the media’s responsibility to educate and inform society. I guess that’s what you get when half your society has below average intellect and the media makes most of its money by pandering to that lesser half. Televised political leadership debates just exacerbates the press/public’s disconnect from reality for superficiality.
Edited by AZPaul3, : wanted to.
Edited by AZPaul3, : more
™ Version 4.2
