By Richard A. Lee
In 1960, telephones were tethered to cords and were used only for conversation. The news came to us just a few times a day – when the paper landed on our doorstep and when networks aired their news broadcasts. And when John Kennedy and Richard Nixon took part in the nation’s first live televised presidential debate, they stood before cameras and answered questions.
Today we get our news 24/7 on phones and computers. Smart phones allow us to text and to email, to surf the web and to capture and share pictures and videos. Advances in technology have radically changed the way news and information is gathered and disseminated, but as Mitt Romney and President Obama campaign this fall, the format we employ for presidential debates is essentially the same as what it was more than 50 years ago.
Granted, the format has been tweaked over the years. Some debates, including the upcoming exchange at Hofstra University on Tuesday, are in town hall settings that allow audience members to ask questions. CNN and YouTube took things a step further during the 2008 presidential primaries by allowing members of the public to pose questions by uploading videos.
But attempts to alter the way we conduct debates have done little to change the basic format of the exchanges. Although we are using new technology and new approaches, we’re using them to do the same old thing. To keep political debates relevant, we need to change our debate process to reflect how we communicate and share ideas in today’s world.
Want to see how the candidates would act in a real-life situation that a president might encounter? How about putting them through a video game that simulates a day in the White House?
What if we held debates on Twitter instead of in arenas? If we want to make sure candidates follow the rules, a 140-character limit would be more effective than a human moderator. And if the candidates are evasive or speak untruths, who better than the Twitterverse to call them out – and do so immediately?
After 50 years of following the same basic formula, such proposals may sound radical. But a Twitter exchange, a video game or another new approach could be a welcome change from watching a debate in which the participants deliver lines that have been tested by focus groups, carefully rehearsed and then fine-tuned to the point that they are absolutely devoid of passion and emotion.
More importantly, a more original approach just might provide a better way to judge who is best qualified to serve as our chief executive in the 21st century.
Richard A. Lee teaches journalism at St. Bonaventure University. He previously spent more than 30 years working in journalism, government and politics in New Jersey.