OK folks. Here's the hot topic I really would like people to address.
Maybe you've invested your time in watching a political debate or attending one. At some point, a candidate comes nowhere close to answering a question directly.
What do you think of that?
Case in point. Republican debate last night on CNN. Last question. CNN John King asks "What is the biggest misconception people have about you." He urged them to help people figure out who to vote for.
Ron Paul got to answer first. He answer it. He said, it's that people don't think he can win. And he elaborated.
Newt Gingrich was next. As far as I could tell, he didn't answer it. Not even close. He went to his talking points and a closing speech.
Romney, possibly taking Newt's lead and seeing King didn't call him on it, did the same thing. Not even close to the question. Went into talking points, highlighting his attributes compared to Obama.
King pressed him. The question was "misconceptions," he said. Romney replied, seemed surprised King held him to it, but not Gingrich.
Romney said something like: "You get to choose the questions and I get to choose the answers." King grinned, Cheshire cat like, and said "fair enough" and let Romney go on. More talking points.
Santorum basically answered the questions directly, reiterating Paul's point, that people don't think he can win.
So, should journalists or questioners allow officials to get away with this? Or is it OK. Are the journalist questions too leading, and if they are should, candidates be given a pass?
I have an "evil reporter" idea on this. Let the audience vote on if the candidate answered the question, and they have to keep talking until they get 50 percent who say they answered it. What do we think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
great point I totally agree!! except I would raise the percentage to 75 percent...vs.50%!! ;-)
ReplyDeleteLet politicians keep talking until they answer the question? What politician wouldn't want more airtime to ramble on his own talking points?
ReplyDeleteIf you want politicians to give actual answers to questions, you need a disincentive: if they don't answer the question directly, they won't be asked another question the rest of the debate (or for a set time period, or the 'punishment' carries over to the next debate, etc.). If moderators had the guts to do that, you'd see behavior change in a hurry.