Letters to the Editor
-
Sound bite debate and MSM spin machine
I can watch the same program and come away with remarkably different views from the MSM and even fellow Salon letter writers. Whether Mr. Shapiro represents the MSM is another question. A few of my observations:
I was struck by the rather pointed questions asked by Brian Williams. On whole, they were exceptionally good and designed to be revealing of the candidate’s character and positions.
The MSM’s leading candidates were less than impressive. In the beginning they appeared nervous and were caught seemingly off guard by the line of questioning. In particular, Obama and Edwards did not project a commanding presence or intelligent articulation of their thoughts even though all they had to do is come up with a few memorable sound bites.
It seemed (as I did not put a stop watch to it) that the three MSM front runners got more questions and therefore more time to express their views. Given that this is the first debate and largely a format favoring sound bites, at the very least, each person who is running for the party nomination should have been given the same opportunity to express their views. Gravel and Kucinich had many valid and important points that go counter to the MSM and apparently the other Democratic candidates.
My overriding argument is that the MSM plays an enormous role in shaping the final field of candidates. A format like the one we witnessed last night is an ideal platform for candidates to rattle off sound bites that the MSM can subsequently editorialize to their liking. Overall, I cannot see how it helped viewers and voters form a meaningful opinion of a candidate.
I would rather have a live debate centered on one specific issue. One and the same question is asked of the candidates. They have 10 minutes to respond and the moderator is empowered to keep the candidates on topic. It is frustrating when politicians are permitted to offer an answer to a question that has little or nothing to do with the question. This format would hopefully offer a clearer understanding of the candidate’s position on an issue and how their thought processes work.
A suggestion that might curtail spin and posturing - Salon can ask each candidate to respond in writing to a series of questions. Same question to each candidate and limit the response to so many words. The questions would be contributed by readers, compiled and narrowed to a handful via online voting. Candidates may respond or not but speaking for myself, if a candidate chose not to respond then I would not consider them a viable candidate. The American people deserve and should demand candidates to provide in writing (for the record) specific substantive positions on critical matters of national interest.