Not a clear view....takes group think of msm stars and views them as truths. Would a balanced, probing, hard hitting debate/interview be of interest to TV viewers.....who would ever know, the MSM is owned by major corporations which have a horse in American biz/politics. The questions which I would like to know about ...might make good ratings when placed in a debate setting.... if candidates feet were held to the fire!

No more presidential debates?! There is a God! Television has proven itself an extravagant, voracious consumer gobbling up massive amounts of material. And if TV cannot always be entertaining, it must always be intriguing and hold the audience’s attention. What ABC did in Pennsylvania was neither. Indeed, the first half was embarrassingly banal and insulting to the intelligence of the candidates and of the audience. The Kennedy-Nixon debates were historic in that they proved one ... More »

The author too glibly accepts the idea that presidential debates are for entertainment. The reason for their existence is to inform voters on the platforms and persona of the candidates so our democracy is an informed democracy. Presidential debates should continue on television, but their form and control must be revised to serve the objective. The cheap sensationalism of gotcha attack questions may have to be removed by insisting upon a worthy moderator, such as perhaps the League ... More »

This opinion piece has considerable journalistic merit. Although the author generally favors the Democrats, here he provides an even-handed analysis of the TV debates in this election cycle. He notes unhappiness on the part of Republicans as well as Democrats. Of especial value is his explanation of why the "show-business" nature is inevitable when TV takes over the presentation of these events.