The Readers: Another View On TV Debates

My Thursday column argued that the city of St. Petersburg should find a way to televise a League of Women Voters-Council of Neighborhood Associations debate of City Council candidates. I have been critical of governments that use their TV stations for propaganda, and asked, what better use of a "city" station than informing the voters about an upcoming election?

As former City Council member Virginia Littrell points out, there are problems involved. An excerpt from her letter:

One of the statements in your column hits the nail on the head.  " I suppose the Bromeliad Society or Pave the Manatee Club could squwak..."  is exactly the reason it should not be done.  Its not a matter of "squwakking".  It is a matter of much greater legal and ethical implication than just a noisy squwak. 

I think we probably agree that the government channel should be fair to all.   So why not Pave the Manatees ?  Why not any organization who wishes to push their particular agenda?   And make no mistake, the questions asked at candidate debates are controlled and screened by the organization holding the debate, thereby framing the debate.  It is a logical and reasonable dynamic, after all they want to hear about issues relative to themselves.  Go Figure!
 
A citizens advisory board appears an easy fix, but has its own set of ramifications. Who appoints the members?  The elected officials?  The Mayor?   Do they stack the board with people who will set standards which limit the air time of organizations unfavorable to the elected officials who are trying to get reelected?   Is it locigal to think a mayorially appointed citizens advisory board would allow a debate by an organization dedicated to..oh, say.. revealing the inadequacies of the mayor's police chief and the problems within the Police Department?

Of course, she makes good points -- almost any mechanism for airing debates on the city's TV channel brings these difficulties into play. My general answer is, if we are worried about discriminating against groups, then use it to air ANY group's debate that meets a few objective standards. In the alternative, if we can't use the city channel to inform the citizens, then by golly, the city ought not be able to use it to glorify the government either. By law, government TV channels should be restricted to showing public meetings and proceedings -- that's it.

Comments

[20/20]

Howard,

I agree with you that Littrell makes some good points. However, this trend of claiming to protect the public by removing the opportunity for “all”, because “one or two” may abuse it… is simply a political cop-out to avoid the reality (true fear). That is; that incumbents rely more on name and Party recognition to win re-election… rather than being recognized and re-elected for good works done on behalf of the people. And the reasons for this are obvious.

A great majority of the incumbent politicians rely on consistent and canned responses, independent of any real and personal thought and consideration. It’s the same reason that “back and forth” discussion between the public and politicians is prohibited at public meetings. You get you three minutes to speak, and that’s it.

If put into a circumstance whereby real, open, un-scripted, live, and independent debate is the order of the day… most of these incumbents would embarrass themselves and their colleagues by exposing how very little they understand with regard to the needs of the community and its residents… let alone put forth any substantive plans and ideas to address them. And frankly, the follow up questions like “Why? And How?”… scare the h#ll out of them.

[20/20]

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Pinellas County created a Homeless committee of some sort. The politicians emerged from the final meeting proclaiming– and campaigned with – the following statement of success. “We have come up with a comprehensive plan that will end homelessness in Pinellas County in 10-years.” (note: 7-years and counting)

In a truly “uncontrolled” debate, imagine how these politicians would answer this follow up question… “Please explain how this committee came up with a plan to “END” something that is a worldwide epidemic and has existed since the beginning of civilized society.” “… and by the way… which one of your will accept the Nobel on behalf of the team… in 10-years?”