By Abe Rosenberg



“There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe...”

“There you go again!”

“Where’s the beef?”

“Let me help you with the difference, Mrs. Ferraro...”

“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

“Who am I? Why am I here?”

“Maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow.’’



Recognize them?

Unfortunately, you probably do. They are the “gotcha” lines that stick in our minds after three decades of Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. For many of us, this is the sum total of our debate knowledge and memory. Cute zingers and stupid gaffes.

Since 1976 when Jimmy Carter debated Gerald Ford under the auspices of the League of Women Voters, televised debates have slowly morphed into video spectacles, where the one-liner matters more than a carefully thought out answer, where catching someone in an awkward moment makes a bigger impression than a candidate’s position on an important issue.

Sometimes we don’t even remember the words, but the non-verbal stuff. The sound cutting out during the first Ford-Carter debate. George H.W. Bush looking at his watch. Al Gore sighing, rolling his eyes, and sneaking up behind George W. Bush, and Bush nodding indifference.

Is this any way to pick a president?

Actually, it began in 1960 with the Kennedy-Nixon TV shows. And I’m choosing my words carefully here. I say “TV shows” rather than “debates.” Don Hewitt produced them to be good television. The overwhelming presence of cameras and lights dominated the proceedings. And while radio listeners heard two candidates discussing substance (and most thought Nixon had won), TV viewers were distracted by Nixon’s pallor (he had the flu), his light-colored jacket blending into the backdrop, and of course, those beads of sweat and those shifting eyes. By contrast, they saw Kennedy in his crisp blue suit, looking tanned, healthy and youthful (in fact there was only five years difference between them, and it turns out Kennedy was a lot sicker than we thought). How many people remember anything substantive said by either man?

This all came back to me, and has been gnawing at me, throughout this year’s presidential campaign, starting with those ridiculous 10-or-12-person debates in the early going, on through to the last of the 21 (21!) Obama-Clinton confrontations. Sure, some of it has been powerful television, a ratings windfall for the cable networks, and fuel for the pundits who endlessly pick it all apart.

But have we truly learned anything?

Has television, by bringing us all these debates, increased our knowledge of the candidates, or just made sure we never see and hear anything more than consultant-crafted soundbites and annoyingly superficial irrelevant nonsense? Are we now better equipped to choose the next leader of the free world because television showed us one candidate complaining about always getting the first question and another candidate squirming under a relentless battery of questions about a preacher, and words like “elitist?”

Let me be clear. I have my preferences, but I have not yet chosen a candidate and would be satisfied, more or less, no matter who gets elected. So this is not simply a defense of Barack Obama when I say it was shameful the way ABC’s anchors wasted nearly half of their Philadelphia debate with trivialities, when we are fighting two wars, our economy is taking a nosedive, much of the world looks at us with contempt, our environment is getting a potentially irreversible beating, our public schools are a disgrace, Social Security is heading for a cliff and our health care system needs intensive care.

A year and a half into the process, I believe the typical voter and viewer still doesn’t really know where the candidates stand on critical issues. And we in the TV business are to blame. We created the showbiz atmosphere, the candidates adapted to it, and the viewers are stuck with it.

So let’s fix it.

Step One: Stop the debates, at least for now. So long as we’re incapable of running a debate that deals in substance, we do a disservice to the public by staging superficial spectacles which mislead voters into thinking they’re watching something important.

Step Two: Copy what works, and ratings be damned. Remember CNN’s “Compassion Forum?” Terrible title. Questionable choice of subject matter. But on several levels, the cable network is onto something. Each candidate got a big chunk of time to talk about one subject, without the other candidate getting in the way. And they didn’t just spout platitudes. They had to respond to pointed questions from experts in the audience... in this case, religious leaders asking about issues of faith. Imagine what could be done with, say, health care, with doctors asking the questions. Or the economy, with questions from small business owners or families facing foreclosure. Or Social Security, with questions from seniors worried about their benefits, and their grandchildren worried about paying for them.

If we commit to forcing the candidates to address serious issues in a serious way, they will adapt again, just as they did when we got careless and pointless. Hey, they’ve got no place else to go!

I don’t expect these forums will grab the kind of ratings racked up by that silly farce in Hollywood’s Kodak Theatre, for example. Nevertheless, millions will watch. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll learn.

So, what do you think?

To read previous columns, visit the Archive.