Reviews for Presidential debates

The average rating for Presidential debates based on 2 reviews is 4.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2016-04-05 00:00:00 Mickey Rymer For political junkies, this is a great book. I have always been fascinated with watching the presidential debates. Schroeder does an amazing job of covering every TV presidential debate since Nixon/Kennedy. Every gaffe, and every crazy allowance made to candidates to get them to basically show up. After reading this book, I will never look at debates the same. I did not realize how contrived the whole process has become. Everything from the setting of the studio temperature, what the size of the podium is, whether or not a chair is provided, what lighting will be used to highlight the candidate the best, etc., etc. It is explained how the moderators are selected, never allowing someone who is deemed unfriendly. Even questions from the audience are screened by the moderator (who, remember, was prescreened themselves), and selected by the moderator. The whole process has been turned into a sideshow. Knowingly sidestepping questions, the "candidates attempt to impose their own story line through the use of calculated gestures, prepackaged sound bites, and audience-tested messages". And now, social media has become the prevalent way for candidates to get their message across. No longer do you have to listen to a long, boring debate, instead Twitter, Facebook, and Google will tell you the highlights, even tell you who won (before the actual debate has even concluded). The whole system has turned into an entertainment spectacle. Like a bad reality TV show. Social media has turned into a method to "a, look for comments that you agree with to shore up your position, b, looking for comments you disagree with in order to fight, and c, snarking on one or both sides because you're a funny guy". And the "mainstream media" is no better. "in each debate, reporters hope for an angle that will provide grist for the news mill; the best stories are those with a whiff of controversy and a prolonged shelf life". "Want to dominate the TV news? Unleash a zippy zinger or gimmick that can be recounted in 20 seconds (or 140 characters)." Which is exactly what we have been witnessing this election cycle, never mind any real discussion of the issues, simply come up with a one-liner (build a wall, etc), and you are guaranteed endless repetition on the news. "In its quest for a good story, the press glorifies colorful characters and punishes dullards. Sober-minded debaters operate at an automatic disadvantage in such a universe, where winning smiles and clever ripostes are the coin of the realm". This book makes me actually feel dirty. I'm very afraid of what has become of our nation, where people are just too busy to pay attention to issues, instead wanting reality TV show entertainment. Welcome to the Game Of Thrones, American Edition".

Review # 2 was written on 2012-09-25 00:00:00 Scotty Helmut This is a very detailed, sometimes perhaps too detailed, account of the televised presidential debates from 1960 to 1996. Tthis is also a good resource for learning about how debate formats, locations, moderators, panelists, etc. are or were chosen for previous debates. I was a bit surprised by two glaring errors in the edition I have (this edition published pre-2000 election). On page 110 it refers to the Bush and Dukakis debate in 1998 instead of 1988. On that same page it quotes a 1992 New York Times article claiming George HW Bush was taking shots in one debate from Perot and Mr. Carter. Carter never debated Bush. That should have read Clinton. Those are the two errors I spotted which cause me concern for the historical accuracy of other tales in the book. I very much enjoyed the conclusion, particularly the remarks about the media and the potential impact the Internet would have on debates. Turns out it has had a significant impact in terms or pre and post-debate reaction and hype! The boom is filled with lots of interesting stories and negotiations I never imagined surround presidential debates. All political journalists should read it and politicos should also consider picking it up.