Disappointing debates

When oh when are journalists going to start asking good questions. There is a difference between a gotcha or a scoop, and a question that elicits good information beyond a sound bite. Journalists stand in our place and should be our aides in learning about those contending to lead our nation.

The format does not promote real debate, with artificial time constraints and little opportunity for informative interchange. If it does occur, the host hustles on to the next question, leaving the conversation unfinished, and the viewer unsatisfied.

And when there is a real opportunity to clarify an issue, they let it pass. One example is the Rep debate when all but McCain heartily endorsed torture. Why didn't our ciphers simply ask "since torture is against the Geneva Convention, which the US has signed, does that mean you don't believe in the rule of law". But, no - onward helter skelter to the next hammer-blow forced-march sound bite predictablilty. I have a few suggestions that may improve our discourse.

Since we have so much concern about competence in government, ask our strivers how they would go about selecting high level officials. Or, instead of yes or no should we get out of Iraq now or later, ask what needs to happen in Iraq for us to change our role. Even a smart hypothetical might be useful, like if a balanced budget was a national consensus goal, how specifically would you achieve it. And, short of a line item veto, how could the Senate rules be changed to get rid of earmarks once and for all. And, let's not hurtle forward where a follow up would drag specificity from an ambiguous answer.

We fall so far short of what is possible on TV to inform the elctorate that a real debate cannot occur. We can only be captive to the posturing and career promoting of our luminaries. Or we can simply turn off the TV.