Presidential Debates and Broadcast Media are Stupid
. . . and as deceitful, manipulative, and as racist as Kamala Harris!
Like many people, I watched the recent presidential debate featuring democratic candidates. To qualify for the first debate held last week in Miami, which played out over two nights, candidates had to fulfill one of two criteria: either get 65,000 donors to their campaigns, with at least 200 donors in 20 different states, or obtain at least 1% in three polls recognized as legitimate by the debate committee. Twenty-(20) of twenty-five-(25) democratic contenders qualified for the first round of debate. With so many qualifiers, the candidates were split into two groups across two consecutive nights totaling four hours, with ten candidates randomly chosen to appear on each night.
According to the overtly left-leaning NBC News, which hosted the debate, candidates' podium placements were "based on polling," which is where, how, and when NBC news began this deceitful, manipulative, and overtly bias broadcast that functioned not as a true debate, but as a classic example of both broadcast and political manure.
BROADCAST MANURE
So, have you ever watched a professional football (NFL), basketball (NBA), or baseball (MLB) game, boxing, UFC, golf, or a NCAA Division I football, basketball, baseball, volleyball, or track and field meet on television? Of course, you have. Then, you've clearly noticed the extremely powerful on-screen graphics that immediately showcare the statistics of individual players and entire teams, including: biographies (birth, parents, sibliings, family history, etc.); alumni; win-loss record; season average; career average; anecdotal comments; human interest spots; fan commentaries; audio and video spots; and extremely interactive on-screen graphics and analytics that enable the "color commentary" hosts to use "on screen" graphics to draw attention to (highlight) player movements, errors, missed calls, and more. That's right, the broadcast networks populate their "sports data base" with literally millions and millions of gigabytes [a unit of information equal to one billion (109) or, strictly, 230 bytes] of data spanning the entire existence of an athlete (Bob Cousy to John Havlick to Bill Russell to Larry Bird, etc. - from amateur to professional to retirement), or team (Boston Celtics, Los Angeles Lakers, Chicago Bulls, etc.). This data is housed on the (video) computer servers of CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, etc. You've seen this data appear instantly on your television screen, right? Of course, you have.
But, no, our broadcast networks are just way too dumb, stupid, and lazy to take time to build, prior to the televised debate, an on-screen "political data base," that mirrors the character and scope of their sports data bases, with robust profiles of every presidential candidate, which would / should include:
Published statements from each candidate on all major topics to be discussed during the debate; to instantly appear on-screen to convey the candidate's official position, and to validate or challenge the veracity of each candidate.
Plus, as an active member of the electorate (voter), I'd like to know which candidates share the same opinion or position on an issue, which is a simple on-screen display. I'd like to know which candidates are supporting the pseudo-rights of illegal aliens while completely ignoring the rights of the sovereign Republic of Lakotah, and again, that's a simple on-screen display. I'd like to know the "bottom line" total projected cost-to-taxpayers for each candidate's first term as POTUS, and again, that's a simple on-screen display. None of the aforementioned happened.
POLITICAL MANUREYes, the networks could use their existing technology to better inform their broadcast audiences, to convey the candidate's official position, and to instantly validate or challenge the veracity of each candidate. Instead, as with all previous televised pseudo-debates, the broadcast was/is designed as a "popularity" contest to see which candidate scores the most "zingers" against other candidates, such as the Johnny-come-lately hypocrisy of Kamala Harris to slam Joe Biden while intentionally ignoring the fact that her good friend President Barack Obama vetted Joe Biden's entire political history, including Biden's voting record and position on racism, and found him to be 100% worthy to be his vice president for eight-(8) consecutive years, and if necessary, to be sworn in as POTUS! Should Harris become the presidential nominee for the Democratic party, you can expect President Donald Trump to seize on Harris' blatantly opportunistic, Johnny-come-lately hypocrisy of playing the "race card" only when it suits her. What's next for Harris? She'll probably play the #ME TOO movement "sex card" and blame Biden for problems with her vagina. Oh yeah, let's go there too!
And, you really wonder how Donald Trump became president, really? The personality-driven "paradigm" used for televised debates, which is not about "issues," is an advantage for Donald Trump and he knows it ("Crooked Hillary" for Hillary Clinton, "Wild Bill" for Bill Clinton, "Lyin' Ted" for Ted Cruz, "Pocahontas" for Elizabeth Warren, "Crazy Joe" for Joe Biden, etc.); which is why President Donald Trump will likely be re-elected in 2020. When it comes to repeatedly and successfully throwing around political manure, none of the Democratic presidential candidates possess the acumen of Donald Trump.
HOW TO BROADCAST AND MODERATE AN OBJECTIVE POLITICAL DEBATE?
That's simple, just use common sense and be fair.
So, there were ten-(10) Democratic presidential candidates on stage. Before beginning the first round of questions, I foolishly expected each candidate would be allowed a brief thirty-(30) second spot to introduce themselves. That didn't happen. Instead, moderators jumped right in and asked questions, but:
Nope, nothing so linear and blatantly objective. Instead, at the expense of all other candidates, front-runners Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden were frequently tossed the first set of questions and then targeted for immediate follow-ups - typically before other candidates even had their first opportunity at an open microphone. That was not fair!
As represented by the following graphic, broadcast networks could easily adapt the technology used for sports programming to accurately and promptly convey (report) the political platforms of each candidate; to easily compare and contrast candidates; and most importantly, instead of pushing personality-based diatribes ("zingers") designed to produce emotional responses, the debates could/should focus on "intellect-based" solutions for serious political problems.
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
NewTek's TriCaster, numerous video servers, and similar broadcast hardware and software technologies can easily be populated with the aforementioned graphics and a robust database of candidate data; I know, because the above graphic is based on my actual, working template.
Additionally, according to NBC, candidates were supposed to be limited to 60 seconds to answer questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups. That didn't happen. Candidates frequently talked well beyond the established time limits, which was easy to prevent, because the program director (in the control room) can easily turn-off any microphone at any time. You've seen acceptance speeches at the Academy Awards® abruptly ended for this very reason, and the subsequent stupid look on the faces of actors/actresses when they realize their microphone is off.Sadly, broadcast networks and the political parties do not effectively and professionally "manage" these "popularity" contests, which is why issue-driven political content is not important; again, the candidate scoring the most "zingers" against other candidates wins! In this regard, comedians Don Rickles, Rodney Dangerfield, and Eddie Griffin, Jr. would be great politicians. It's a waste of time to watch any more of these presidential debates, because the "zingers" will be broadcast repeatedly during the post-debate news cycle.
QUESTION: Every day billions of financial transactions occur over securely encrypted financial networks, all with limited errors and constant due dilligence; so why hasn't the federal and state governments simply converted these highly encrypted financial systems into a proprietary voting network, which would: (1) secure the vote; and (2) enable greater participation by any validated U.S. citizen with access to a smart phone, smart TV, computer, etc., and (3) enable U.S. citizens (the popular vote) to directly propose laws and/or vote on political and social issues thereby significantly reducing or eliminating the current electoral process, which is perpetually skewed to favor White-male dominance, to overtly favor partisan White-male dominated political parties, and overtly influenced by White-male dominated lobbyists?
ANSWER: Simply put, the current voting process enables White people, primarily White men, to stay in power and make money, and any loss of power or money is NOT in the best interest of White people. Keep in mind, White people, primarily White men, make the rules (laws) and all exceptions to the rules! It's their country. White people own and/or control everything – from education to business to government; and White people unilaterally "pick and choose" if and when they'll adhere to whatever rules, laws, and contracts they establish.
If White men, who've held perpetual control over these so-called United States of America, truly believed in democracy and egalitarian principles, the Declaration of Independence would have been written like this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
BUT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN; HASN'T HAPPENED.
In summary, when it comes to repeatedly and successfully throwing around political manure, none of the Democratic presidential candidates wield the acumen of Donald Trump, which is why President Donald Trump will likely be re-elected* in 2020. Deal with it.
I welcome your feedback.
Trip Reynolds
trip.reynolds@yahoo.com
* Trump lost! Bummer. Well, there's this and that and the other!
Reynolds' Rap
June 30, 2019
© 2017-2019 Tripoetry. All Rights Reserved.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
