The Next Presidential Debate Should Not Include Any Candidates

That’s right. No candidates. Instead, I’m proposing that we get the pundit entertainers that drive the topics of the debates to get in the ring and defend their positions against each other.

This summer, my 19 year-old son and I unknowingly completed a media experiment. Most weeknights, between 8–10pm, we would watch the Big 3 24/7 cable news networks, CNN, Fox and MSNBC. This is the “non-news-news” portion of the day for these networks. When I say, “non-news news” it’s because during this time, these news networks present programming that is more host-forward, more opinionated and frequently has less to do with objective reporting and more about positioning (and ratings). Neither my son nor I had any problem with these programming segments. We understand that most of what we heard and saw during these programs is opinion, not news, and frequently lacks factual substance in order to attract ratings in a highly competitive media segment and at the most competitive time of day for audiences. We actually found most segments to be very entertaining, sometimes funny, sometimes thought-provoking but always biased. But mostly, we thought that they were funny in the simplicity of their formulas.

So we gave all three an opportunity throughout the summer and we would flip between all three channels to watch animated hosts whine about the latest conspiracy theory or outrageous behavior observed by an official. If we were going to rate these programs based on pure entertainment value, we unanimously agreed that it was a toss up between the outrageous claims of Tucker Carlson and the bombast of Sean Hannity. Rachel Maddow was also entertaining but mostly because of how easily she could dive down a rabbit hole of data and conspiracy, all the time animated with her hands, but basically losing the two of us in the details and complexity of her theories. We felt badly for her because it was obvious how hard she and her team worked on these stories, but seeing her get so worked up into a frenzy trying to explain them mostly made us giggle in pity. CNN (Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo) were the least entertaining but often came across as having the most integrity (back to the afternoon shift guys!).

Sprinkled between our experiment this summer were two democratic primary debates. In each case, these too, were run during the coveted 8–10pm slot and not surprisingly, produced with over-the-top graphics, music, commentary and often even the questions that were designed not so much to generate thoughtful responses, but to draw out a ratings-worthy attack that would linger in the news cycle for a precious few more hours after the debates aired. Ironically, we found the actual debates to be relatively uninformative and largely spectacles. It was far more fun to watch Sean Hannity display graphics every night of a “democratic dumpster fire” or “old Joe Biden”! Fox News would often go so far as to air a Trump rally live during these segments, and there is certainly no better political entertainer than Donald Trump (kudos to Fox News for knowing where your bread is buttered!). As members of the audience, we’ve been trained to seek the entertainment value for programming during this time, and these commentators are more entertaining than boring old politicians, with the exception of the president.

Politicians have figured this out. We see the same people on the same networks over and over again. We even see politicians and bureaucrats retiring their public positions directly into media slots. There may be hundreds of members of Congress, but we all know certain members better than others because they are frequent contributors on these networks, and in particular, on these programs during prime time. They work the media and help provide support for the conspiracies and political positions of the hosts of the shows during this time slot. Who is guiding whom? Is it the politicians leading the commentators, or is the commentators driving the politicians? We already know that the president watches cable news frequently, and there have been many commentators who have noted that occasionally when an attractive fact or theory to his presidency arises, he will tweet out exactly what just appeared on TV.

So let’s face it: elections are now heavily driven by not just the general concept of media, but entertainment value. It has become increasingly difficult for the public to distinguish between entertainment and fact. This has justifiably led to accusations of “fake news” and all three networks and virtually every media outlet, irrespective of political orientation, has been guilty of this. Few publicly admit when they push false information or conspiracy theories. So how do we put “the truth” in front of the people? After our experiment concluded this summer, my recommendation is that we, the people, should get what we really have coming to us: a series of debates, in person, on the same stage between the network pundits themselves. What my son and I observed this summer, is that while all three networks provide adequate entertainment, not everyone realizes that that’s all it is, and they take the lopsided bend of an entire program as factual and justified, without ever hearing the other side and without having the pundit’s facts ever challenged. We witnessed this over and over again. While Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are fact checked repeateldy by the media, virtually no one is fact checking the media themselves! Yes, there are organizations that do this and post their truth ratings on the internet, but most partisans believe that these organizations themselves are biased. The networks also fact check each other, but this is lost on audiences who are already biased.

So there’s only one way to settle it: direct 1:1 debates. I’ve even developed a format: in the first debate, each pundit can pick one story or segment that the other ran and challenge it as untrue or unsubstantiated; the other pundit must defend it. In the last portion of the debate, a popular political topic such as how the government has handled mass shootings/gun control, climate policies, taxes, immigration, etc., can be directly debated based on a single question. The debates would be moderated by three viewers (not celebrities or news anchors) who self-declare themselves progressive, moderate and conservative. Fact checks would be done in real time and presented by the moderators.

In subsequent media debates, they would occur within the days following actual presidential debates, and the topics would cover both the perceived winners of the debates as well as one or two of the topics covered.

I know what everyone is thinking is wrong with this: we can’t have journalists debating topics and taking a position. But that’s the whole point. If you are leading a news program between 8–10pm, you are not a journalist, you are an informed entertainer. That’s it. I have no problem with that and I wish that each network promoted a disclosure on the news ticker running at the bottom that said something like: “WARNING! WHAT YOU ARE VIEWING IS NOT THE NEWS. IT IS A STYLIZED ENTERTAINMENT VERSION OF THE NEWS THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR YOU TO WATCH. ABSORBING AND ADOPTING ANY OF THE INFORMATION OR OPINIONS CONTAINED IN THIS BROADCAST AS ACTUAL FACTS COULD BE DANGEROUS TO OUR COUNTRY.” Or even better, we should have a fourth network where these pundits are forced to regularly confront each other directly. But alas, we do not do that.

I mean, who doesn’t want to see Tucker Carlson and Chris Cuomo go head to head? Rachel Madoff and Sean Hannity! I’m excited just thinking about it.

Let’s face it, when we watch politicians speak, we ignore it. Instead, we wait for the pundits to come on that night and tell us what to think about it. I say, that’s ok, but let’s see them defend against their biggest competitors on the other networks. Then let the people decide what is truth and what is fiction.