To the Editor:
Re “How to Improve the Debates,” by Michelle Cottle (Opinion, Aug. 18):
Ms. Cottle makes many important criticisms of the presidential debates in recent years, but comes up short on real reforms. She saves for last the single most useful change: Eliminate the audience full of partisans of the candidates. The first debate, Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, was held in a TV studio and avoided zingers, audience applause or laughter, or planned crowd-pleasers. The debate focused largely on substantive issues.
There should be a single well-informed and impartial moderator who would avoid the sniping and one-upmanship that appeal to so many on-air commentators.
Giving the candidates two or three topics in advance is not a good idea. The opportunities for two-sided, please-all answers are obvious, and it would permit teams of advisers to get into the substance of the debate.
As to the dates of the debates, the first one should be as close as possible to the beginning of early voting, and the last one should be at least 10 days before Election Day to allow for any October surprise that needs fact-checking and correction by the media.
Jim Boorsch
Hamden, Conn.
To the Editor:
The chess clock model allowing each candidate to have a total of 45 minutes of speaking time is a great suggestion, but one slight modification would make the debate format even better: The speaker’s microphone should be on, and the opponent’s should be turned off. Nothing is more inimical to a respectful, rational and informative discussion than allowing the opponents to interrupt and speak over each other. Even without the chess clock model, the debate format should ensure that the speakers take turns, one at a time.
Paul Martin
Seattle
To the Editor:
Thanks to Michelle Cottle for highlighting the benefits of doing away with the circuslike atmosphere of political “debates.” Having no live audience is a good start. Sticking to issues instead of baiting candidates is also a good thing. But in this time and place in our nation, I think the best way to improve the debates is to not have them.
Really, is there anything new we could learn from seeing and listening to Joe Biden and Donald Trump? Haven’t we seen and heard it all? Over and over again? As for a Harris-Pence debate, replace it with a block of airtime, to let each outline her or his vision of the nation and the way to to accomplish this — or answer, without interruption, a set of identical questions posed before going on the air.
The virtual Democratic convention got positive reviews. It was thoughtful and dignified and could be the blueprint for future events, debates included.
Gail Minthorn
Wilton, Conn.
To the Editor:
Instead of reconfiguring the debates, let’s just get rid of the third party. The moderators continue to ask inane questions and seem to have no problem when they’re not answered. Let each candidate ask questions of the other one. The question can last 30 seconds, the response can be two minutes, and comments on that response should be one minute.
If there are three presidential debates, let each one center on a specific topic, such as the economy, immigration, foreign policy, health care, etc. The last 30 minutes of each forum can be “anything goes.”
There are enough “talking heads” on the network and cable stations. We don’t need any of them involved here. The only role a possible moderator might have is to break up a fight, if one occurs. For that role I nominate Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson.
Philip Barnett
Scottsdale, Ariz.
To the Editor:
Joe Biden is a gentle stutterer. President Trump is a brawler. Presidential debates as currently staged are brawls. Admittedly, brawls draw crowds and can be entertaining, but they are seldom enlightening. Unfortunately, the tepid suggestions that Michelle Cottle proposes to improve the contests will do little to change the atmospherics of the upcoming debates. While Americans love a fight, most of us want a fair fight, and without real changes in the debate format this ain’t going to be no fair fight.
Rick Parkinson
Provo, Utah
To the Editor:
If we really want to stop the theatrics and make the debates meaningful, then, in this age of the virus, switch to virtual debates. Each candidate in his or her own location, the moderator in a third, asking questions. Nobody prancing around the stage, distracting everyone. No live audience to play to. A mute button to cut off interruptions.
We are in the middle of a pandemic. It is not business as usual. Do we really want two 70-plus-year-old candidates sharing the stage with each other and a nearby slew of broadcast personnel? Two major universities — the University of Michigan and Notre Dame — dropped out as debate sponsors because of Covid.
Do we want our leaders flying to the virus hot spot Miami as well as Cleveland and Nashville, attended by campaign staff, drivers and airline personnel?
This is the way to promote meaningful debate — and protect the health of everyone involved.
Susan Shepard
Brooklyn
To the Editor:
May I make one further suggestion? Time should be allotted for fact-checking. An independent panel would fact-check as the debate takes place, and at the end both candidates would be challenged with the facts (had they lied or misled) and have to respond accordingly.
This would achieve two things. First, it may deter the candidates from trying to lie in the first instance, and second, if they did they would be held accountable at the debate.
With over 20,000 lies from the current president, the American people deserve a truthful debate. The outcome of this election may indeed be a matter of life or death.
Rory O’Connor
Ocean City, N.J.
To the Editor:
Michelle Cottle is so right that presidential debates are a public service. But they’re a public good in a different way than people usually assume.
In an era where politicians (looking directly at you, President Trump) regularly demean their adversaries, debates provide a unique opportunity to restore the civility that should underpin politics, where both candidates lay out different visions for the country in ways that respect legitimate political differences.
That’s why moderators are important — and they need to do more than direct interaction or check facts. They should literally call out candidates when they treat their opponent with obvious incivility, even penalize them by taking away time.
As the political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have observed, when political rivalries descend into poisonous hate and candidates will do anything to win, our democracy is at a precipice. By reaffirming civility in this dangerous time, debates can prevent further erosion of democracy.
Richard M. Perloff
Cleveland
The writer is a professor of communication and political science at Cleveland State University.
To the Editor:
Standing on a debate stage in 2016, Hillary Clinton was answering a question posed by the moderator and suddenly realized that her opponent, Donald Trump, was prowling somewhere behind and near her. Why was the moderator missing in action when that intentional stalking by Mr. Trump to throw his opponent off stride was taking place?
In 2020 we can expect many diversions from Mr. Trump. There are some useful recommendations from the Annenberg Public Policy Center in Michelle Cottle’s piece. But while Annenberg recommends “cutting moderators out of the action as much as possible,” I believe that training for moderators in how to handle infractions should be required. We know what’s coming!
Harriet Cornell
West Nyack, N.Y.
The writer is a member of the Rockland County Legislature.
To the Editor:
My suggestions:
1. Use prosecutors rather than journalists asking questions to control the debate; they’re often more incisive and able to deftly handle evasive responses.
2. Use PBS and C-SPAN to broadcast the debates; there would be no distracting commercials and better recognition that the debates are “not for profit.”
3. In at least one debate, disallow attacks on opponents. The debates exist to inform the public of the candidates’ policy positions and their rationales for holding them.
Bruce Kerievsky
Monroe Township, N.J.
Source: Elections - nytimes.com
