Questions & Answers
Ideas
Lab Projects
Edit
|
10/08/2004

Have cops/lawyers do political interviews

The Flash 9.0.0 plugin or higher is required to view content on this page, but was not detected on your browser.
Get Flash Player
  I think it's terrible to see a presidential debate where one candidate claims that the sky is green while the other says it is yellow, and then the interviewer nods solemly and moves on to the next question. This stuff is poison for any democracy - yet this strange type of political interview seems to be spreading like the plague!
  Let the viewers reach their own opinions? What a bunch of hogwash! The viewers (including myself) simply don't have the facts, they have jobs and a family and lead their own lives, they can't spend hours every day just to stay up-to-date. In a modern society we need to be able to delegate the critical questions/contradictions to journalists who know what they're doing. Sure, there are after-show debates where some of this is analyzed, but honestly, who watches them?
  I propose that political interviews either be conducted by cops or lawyers. By profession, if someone tells an obvious lie or contradicts himself, they will not just move on to the next question, but nail the guy to the wall. That would make interviews and discussions much more fruitful.
  In addition, it would be necessary to install an instant fact-checking system. If two politicians claim different things, it should only take minutes to come up with an insert clarifying which one is actually saying the truth. Politicians these days rely on the fact that whatever they say can't be researched within 60 minutes, which is why they believe they can say *anything* in a TV show and get away with it (because most people switch channels directly after the debate, so it'll stick for most).
Discussion
Picture
Steve
 
Not Rated
Previous Next