I agree with your assessment of the use by candidates and others of the "debates". Karen Kasler, Bureau Chief of the Statehouse News Bureau, interviews statewide candidates one-on-one on The State of Ohio news show on Ideastream/PBS. Governor candidates get one-half hour each, others 15 minutes. She asks the same general questions of each and pushes back when she hears BS. Look for the show.
It is not Amy Acton's responsibility to solely "fix" the debate issues. As you stated, it is not in her best interest as a candidate to do so. Ramaswamy refuses to provide proposed policies to media. Would he do so in a debate or bring up falsehoods and culture wars? Why not promote the League of Women Voters as the alternative to beginning the process of improving the debacle that debates have become? Their forums are well run, with questions included from audience members. They do not allow behaviors that are disruptive. Candidates owe their constituents honest answers with policies they hope to enact. Not bait. Fix the process first.
Comparing anything in 2022 to now is disingenuous. These last four years happened.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with Trump and the Epstein file protectors.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with Max Miller and company.
Vivek lost the debate when he vowed to close Ohio universities.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with the party of ICE and kidnapping (or worse) our neighbors and friends.
Vivek lost the debate when he pledged to take even MORE money away from Ohio's public schools and the children who depend on them.
Vivek lost the debate when he put Linda Caudill's crazy ass on every television in Ohio to lie about Amy Acton killing her mother who lived in Kentucky.
Stop pretending we are still in the before times and that these are reasonable people.
I responded to the link on Facebook before I read this article in depth. My response stood up pretty well, under the circumstances, but could have still been improved.
Proposing a candidate interview would still be a good idea. But, in my FB response, I proposed the idea for Dr. Acton only. The reality is that a news organization should control a candidate interview with both candidates and should have complete control of the narrative of the interview.
I don’t really see a downside for either candidate under that scenario. Moreover, to avoid the performative nonsense of so much political debating today, the candidates would be interviewed back-to-back and the format should take less than an hour to complete. That way, neither candidate has a chance at disruption and we can see exactly how each candidate would respond without the pressure of the other candidate second guessing their answers in real time. Under the guidelines of real world interviewing for any job, the kind of scenarios we see in political debate would be completely unrealistic in the real world and that would also apply to a political office, where the taking of decisions are often a solitary exercise (or, at least, should be).
I agree with your assessment of the use by candidates and others of the "debates". Karen Kasler, Bureau Chief of the Statehouse News Bureau, interviews statewide candidates one-on-one on The State of Ohio news show on Ideastream/PBS. Governor candidates get one-half hour each, others 15 minutes. She asks the same general questions of each and pushes back when she hears BS. Look for the show.
Good to know about these interviews. This is the kind of alternative format I was suggesting over in the FB comments.
I'd like to see this done a few times forvGov and Senate, maybe by the major newspapers and TV stations.
It is not Amy Acton's responsibility to solely "fix" the debate issues. As you stated, it is not in her best interest as a candidate to do so. Ramaswamy refuses to provide proposed policies to media. Would he do so in a debate or bring up falsehoods and culture wars? Why not promote the League of Women Voters as the alternative to beginning the process of improving the debacle that debates have become? Their forums are well run, with questions included from audience members. They do not allow behaviors that are disruptive. Candidates owe their constituents honest answers with policies they hope to enact. Not bait. Fix the process first.
Hard disagree here.
Comparing anything in 2022 to now is disingenuous. These last four years happened.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with Trump and the Epstein file protectors.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with Max Miller and company.
Vivek lost the debate when he vowed to close Ohio universities.
Vivek lost the debate when he signed on with the party of ICE and kidnapping (or worse) our neighbors and friends.
Vivek lost the debate when he pledged to take even MORE money away from Ohio's public schools and the children who depend on them.
Vivek lost the debate when he put Linda Caudill's crazy ass on every television in Ohio to lie about Amy Acton killing her mother who lived in Kentucky.
Stop pretending we are still in the before times and that these are reasonable people.
I responded to the link on Facebook before I read this article in depth. My response stood up pretty well, under the circumstances, but could have still been improved.
Proposing a candidate interview would still be a good idea. But, in my FB response, I proposed the idea for Dr. Acton only. The reality is that a news organization should control a candidate interview with both candidates and should have complete control of the narrative of the interview.
I don’t really see a downside for either candidate under that scenario. Moreover, to avoid the performative nonsense of so much political debating today, the candidates would be interviewed back-to-back and the format should take less than an hour to complete. That way, neither candidate has a chance at disruption and we can see exactly how each candidate would respond without the pressure of the other candidate second guessing their answers in real time. Under the guidelines of real world interviewing for any job, the kind of scenarios we see in political debate would be completely unrealistic in the real world and that would also apply to a political office, where the taking of decisions are often a solitary exercise (or, at least, should be).