For the first time in the 2024 election cycle, we saw the Presidential hopefuls take the stage in Milwaukee on Wednesday night. Eight candidates stood behind their respective podiums for the debate as the country got its first look at several alternative options, sans the obvious one, for what the future of the country might look like under their leadership.
But as has happened in the last couple of election cycles, I went in with high hopes for a primary debate and left feeling mostly disappointed. While these events are good for the media, with big ratings for Fox News, and plenty of content for talk radio shows and stations like mine, there’s often very little substance that comes out of them that are beneficial for the American voter.
It got me thinking that there has to be a better way.
Granted, I understand the debate format leads to combative moments and fodder for talking heads, but there’s little over those two hours that stands out from a policy perspective. And by the way, for those who want to “blame Trump” for the entertainment style of political debate, he wasn’t even on the stage on Wednesday, so we can’t blame him.
Unfortunately, it’s become the nature of politics. And it’s in both parties. As you may recall, during the 2020 cycle, the Democratic Party had multiple debates with 10 or more people on the stage at a time. They were events that would have impressed P.T. Barnum.
And by the way, the debates had little to no bearing on the results. There wasn’t a single debate that Joe Biden handled well. But, of course, he became the nominee and eventually won the general election. So how important are these primary debates? And if they aren’t playing a role in who voters ultimately select, is it time to consider a format change?
I say all this as someone who benefits greatly from the current format. We can play back the clips, talk about the drama, react to the bizarreness, and create what we hope is informative, but more importantly, entertaining, content out of the debate.
And that leads to the conundrum media faces right now: Do we do what might be a better format for deep diving into issues? Something like one-on-one candidate forums on major networks with back-to-back candidates? Better restrictions that lead to fewer people on stage (My personal favorite)? Or a JV Debate vs. a Varsity debate (Democrats tried this in 2020 when they had 20+ candidates) based on polling numbers?
The catch remains that the current format is more lucrative for clicks, ratings, and appointment viewing and listening, so why change it? Ultimately the media is in an arms race for viewers and listeners in an ever-changing landscape.
It doesn’t help that running for President has become a hobby for some who are bored, vindictive, or looking to raise their name recognition and become famous (or infamous).
But now that we’re in that world, it’s time to take a hard look at the process and rather than do what’s in the best interest for us in the media, do better for the American people. In the meantime, I’ll remain as guilty as the rest in using the current format to benefit with provocative, entertaining content.
Alas, the conundrum continues.
Pete Mundo is a weekly columnist for Barrett Media, and the morning show host and program director for KCMO in Kansas City. Previously, he was a fill-in host nationally on FOX News Radio and CBS Sports Radio, while anchoring for WFAN, WCBS News Radio 880, and Bloomberg Radio. Pete was also the sports and news director for Omni Media Group at K-1O1/Z-92 in Woodward, Oklahoma. He’s also the owner of the Big 12-focused digital media outlet Heartland College Sports. To interact, find him on Twitter @PeteMundo.
