Comments on: Master Debating http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/ The Pen Is Mightier Than Thy Wench Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:29:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: AlvinBlahhttp://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/comment-page-1/#comment-24051 AlvinBlah Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:27:59 +0000 http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/#comment-24051 I think that we have become so comfortable with a commercial media system and don't really remember what it was like before the deregulations of 1996 it becomes easy to assume that a commercial system is the only way that it will work. Our media empire is a system that allows the powerful to favor the powerful. However It cannot be fully dismissed simply because it sucks. It is the system that is in place, and we kind of have to deal with it, it's entrenched. We can't reject it, we can only change it. Which is what I'm advocating with the debates. I think that for debates to function most effectively, as in a manner that creates the best environment for a mediated argument, you cannot have too many people involved. Four at the most. Debates need to be leaner meaner machines. I think the failure of the CNN debates stems more from trying to give all the major candidates an opportunity to speak (albeit unequal amounts of time). I also don't think that it makes sense for candidates that have extreme views, or make outrageous claims to be taken at the same face value as the candidates that have real platforms. When the fringe is taken seriously one loses perspective over real issues. Hence needing to reduce the presence of the lower tier candidates from the debate. I agree that Ron Paul got screwed my Mr. 9/11 but that one circumstance doesn't validate the presence of 10 people trying to have a structured argument. I'm also not saying that the lower tier candidates should be removed from the process, but debates themselves are not the proper outlet. Or if they are, the debates need to develop a system where there are less people involved at any given time. I'd also like to see cross party debating during the primary season, instant run-off voting, and lower barriers for 3rd parties to gain national momentum, but you've got to work within the current strictures, and the easiest thing I see is a separation between candidates in the debate system. I think there should still be an open forum system where all the candidates participate, so don't think that I'm trying to totally undermine the non-mainstream candidates. But I do think that in an electoral based society, for better or worse those that lead the polls get preference. I think that we have become so comfortable with a commercial media system and don’t really remember what it was like before the deregulations of 1996 it becomes easy to assume that a commercial system is the only way that it will work. Our media empire is a system that allows the powerful to favor the powerful.

However It cannot be fully dismissed simply because it sucks. It is the system that is in place, and we kind of have to deal with it, it’s entrenched. We can’t reject it, we can only change it.

Which is what I’m advocating with the debates. I think that for debates to function most effectively, as in a manner that creates the best environment for a mediated argument, you cannot have too many people involved. Four at the most. Debates need to be leaner meaner machines. I think the failure of the CNN debates stems more from trying to give all the major candidates an opportunity to speak (albeit unequal amounts of time).

I also don’t think that it makes sense for candidates that have extreme views, or make outrageous claims to be taken at the same face value as the candidates that have real platforms. When the fringe is taken seriously one loses perspective over real issues.

Hence needing to reduce the presence of the lower tier candidates from the debate. I agree that Ron Paul got screwed my Mr. 9/11 but that one circumstance doesn’t validate the presence of 10 people trying to have a structured argument.

I’m also not saying that the lower tier candidates should be removed from the process, but debates themselves are not the proper outlet. Or if they are, the debates need to develop a system where there are less people involved at any given time.

I’d also like to see cross party debating during the primary season, instant run-off voting, and lower barriers for 3rd parties to gain national momentum, but you’ve got to work within the current strictures, and the easiest thing I see is a separation between candidates in the debate system.

I think there should still be an open forum system where all the candidates participate, so don’t think that I’m trying to totally undermine the non-mainstream candidates. But I do think that in an electoral based society, for better or worse those that lead the polls get preference.

]]> By: StiflyStifersonhttp://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/comment-page-1/#comment-23989 StiflyStiferson Sat, 09 Jun 2007 01:14:31 +0000 http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/#comment-23989 I think you raise many good points. Interaction between candidates is a necessity in real debate the absence of which makes the MSM's incarnation a goddamn joke. However, I think excluding second-tier candidates from the debate does a disservice to the greater good. While their chances of victory may be minuscule, they offer different perspectives which, in addition to broadening the political horizons of a woefully, and systematically uninformed general public, provides for more vibrant discourse between the candidates that would only be augmented if interaction was brought into greater prominence. Though I cant profess to be intimately familiar with the Giuliani-Paul interaction in the Republican debate, I remember Paul raising very valid points regarding American foreign policy as an instigator of dissatisfaction towards America and Giuliani exploiting a political vulnerability by construing Ron Paul's in the frame of unpatriotic pablum. I like the point you make about the American media being an industry of greater power and potential for corruption than any other. I am more and more considerate of the argument that because the media such a political tool it should, like I believe campaign finance should, fall under public control. State controlled media Ill grant isn't an appetizing prospect, but if it were under the umbrella of say the civil rights branch of the justice dept. I think it'd be in safe hands. I could be very wrong. I think you raise many good points. Interaction between candidates is a necessity in real debate the absence of which makes the MSM’s incarnation a goddamn joke. However, I think excluding second-tier candidates from the debate does a disservice to the greater good. While their chances of victory may be minuscule, they offer different perspectives which, in addition to broadening the political horizons of a woefully, and systematically uninformed general public, provides for more vibrant discourse between the candidates that would only be augmented if interaction was brought into greater prominence. Though I cant profess to be intimately familiar with the Giuliani-Paul interaction in the Republican debate, I remember Paul raising very valid points regarding American foreign policy as an instigator of dissatisfaction towards America and Giuliani exploiting a political vulnerability by construing Ron Paul’s in the frame of unpatriotic pablum. I like the point you make about the American media being an industry of greater power and potential for corruption than any other. I am more and more considerate of the argument that because the media such a political tool it should, like I believe campaign finance should, fall under public control. State controlled media Ill grant isn’t an appetizing prospect, but if it were under the umbrella of say the civil rights branch of the justice dept. I think it’d be in safe hands. I could be very wrong.

]]> By: AlvinBlahhttp://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/comment-page-1/#comment-23954 AlvinBlah Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:49:02 +0000 http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/#comment-23954 If his popularity is reflected in real polls it will validate his presence in the Debates, but as of now, he's still a small small fish. And money aside. That's great that he's raising real dollars, and I'll be the first to celebrate a rise to the front stage in such a dramatic manner, but he is still unknown to most of the country. Only people online know his name, and those that are online and switched on are still in a national minority for citizens. If his popularity is reflected in real polls it will validate his presence in the Debates, but as of now, he’s still a small small fish.

And money aside. That’s great that he’s raising real dollars, and I’ll be the first to celebrate a rise to the front stage in such a dramatic manner, but he is still unknown to most of the country.

Only people online know his name, and those that are online and switched on are still in a national minority for citizens.

]]> By: Borg Bloghttp://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/comment-page-1/#comment-23938 Borg Blog Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:05:17 +0000 http://www.prosebeforehos.com/alvinblah/06/08/master-debating/#comment-23938 Critics' dismissals aside, it turns out that Ron Paul is becoming a real force to be reckoned with in the GOP primaries. See <a href="http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=595" rel="nofollow">"Ron Paul Contributions Up Ten-fold, Approaching $5,000,000"</a>. Critics’ dismissals aside, it turns out that Ron Paul is becoming a real force to be reckoned with in the GOP primaries. See “Ron Paul Contributions Up Ten-fold, Approaching $5,000,000″.

]]>