The two hours after the vice presidential debate was a time for massive amounts of media analysis about what we just watched and heard, how we heard it, and grading on the "performance". The American taxpayer and voter does not really need to have the debate steak cut for them or be spoon fed the regurgitated broadcast event...the viewer / listener heard the questions, saw the human element of delivery and convinction of the answers. And the debate between "talking heads" in the herd of jounalists and their own debate, spin and opinions on who scored the most points and why seems like a waste. I enjoyed the vp debate, am proud of our leaders and their difficult job with the issues facing the country for challenges. But ten minutes into the heated media debate on "who won" may be go hunting for the channel changer. If the same two hours of this brain trust of jounalist spewed construction advice on what the country needs to do, what they would do if president or VP, and other constructive use of the times while millions watch, what an educational positive experience that would be. But what would be the fun in that? If you feel strongly about one candidate over the other, you enjoy hearing one side of the long desk or round table of journalist say your candidate was strong, convincing or bested the other. Then another announcer can explain how the other candidate won points on this or that. What if the time for reactions from media was used to cover other news that is back seated ? Maybe it was a slow news day.
This blog does not allow anonymous comments