Let's Lose the Lightning Round
But it turns out that this writer wasn't alone in observing how gimmicked up some of the presidential debates have become. CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller – in one of his irregularly scheduled dispatches – decries the 'Lightning Round' being used by MSNBC.
It's almost enough to make you pine for Billiam the Snowman. Almost.
And now, Mark's musings.
Do we really need to turn our presidential debates into game shows?
I was thinking about last week's democratic debate hosted by NBC News and was put off by the segment labeled "the lightning round."
Each candidate was given just 30 seconds to respond to a question – and like a game show – a visual countdown clock was put on the screen.
Now, we all understand the point of this. Two-hour long political debates can become boring, and putting a stopwatch to the candidates is a way to pick up the pace and liven up the responses, but does it illuminate the issues or the candidates' stands on them?
I make my living as a radio reporter reducing complicated issues to 35-second reports. Such brief stories may be of value as a headline service, and give a listener a feel for what's going on, but it's no substitute for more thorough coverage.
The same with debate lightning rounds.
Sure, there's something to be said for a candidate who can think fast and articulate a position clearly and quickly. But is it in the best interests of journalism to rush a candidate through an answer?
Can you imagine the uproar if a reporter at a presidential news conference tried that stunt?
"Mr. President, to what extent is U.S. national security endangered by the state of emergency declared in Pakistan by President Musharraf? And you have 30 seconds to respond."
By all means, the moderator of a debate should not let a candidate drone on and on, but we really don't need to turn the process into political Beat the Clock.