Last week, an audience of millions took in what passes for political discourse in our country, in two televised . . .
debates between the leaders of the major federal parties.
While there is much to say about the poor choice of format or the quality of moderation, let alone the behaviour of candidates, the role of televised “debate” is something that should be at the forefront of the discussion.
These spectacles are organized by people whose bread gets buttered by connecting eyeballs with advertising. Even with this year’s choice of creating a debate commission to manage the logistics, the two events were theatrical productions: each segment a tight 22 minutes, which resulted in two hours of cheap talking points and phony banter before cutting back to whatever content actually pays the broadcasters’ bills.
Despite the best efforts of those in media to convince viewers otherwise, politics is not like horse racing. In fact, legislation and policy are incredibly boring most of the time, but that doesn’t sell enough pickup trucks and hemorrhoid cream for the network execs, so things have to be spiced up a little bit.
In an effort to keep the audience from falling asleep, candidates are limited to timeframes that hinder thoughtful discussion and encourage sloganeering. At the end of an evening of name-calling, disingenuous statements and talking over one another, the spin-doctors in each campaign war-room can churn out a series of disjointed clips that shows their candidate “winning” the debate. Each network can then have a series of talking heads come on to give their hot takes on who had the best zinger, or who appeared more “genuine,” filling even more air time with drivel.
In visual mediums like television, the action occurs in short bursts of wit or bluster that producers can clip and replay over and over. Someone waving their finger and attacking their adversaries will get more attention than someone calmly laying out a complex policy over the course of several minutes.
This ensures a grotesque spectacle that many Canadians are rightly horrified by but can’t avert their eyes from, like a train derailing in slow motion.
It’s important to acknowledge that how we consume our news is as important as the actual news itself, which Marshall McLuhan so concisely pointed out with his famous adage, “The medium is the message.” TV debate is designed with advertisers in mind; it’s meant to entertain as much as it’s meant to inform. That’s not to say radio and print don’t have their downsides, they do, but there’s no form of communication that appeals to the lowest common denominator like the old boob tube.
When choosing a financial institution, for example, a savvy consumer would go to a selection of banks in the area and ask for a detailed summary of their rates and restrictions. They wouldn’t ask the bankers to compete in a live roast battle/trivia contest and then pick the best performer.
Consuming news in this current age has often been compared to drinking from a fire hose, there’s just too much competing information vying for our attention that the truth inevitably gets drowned out by a torrent of propaganda. Separating facts from opinions or even outright falsehoods is both difficult and time-consuming, so many people choose to double down on their pre-conceived stances or tune out entirely.
If you’re of age to vote, you have a civic duty to stay informed about the people vying for power. It’s worth your time to peruse the party platforms, or an in-depth interview with the local candidates. The future of the country depends on it.
Caleb Nickerson
