Kevin Sauter, professor emeritus of communication studies at the University of St. Thomas College of Arts and Sciences, recently spoke with the Minnesota Star Tribune about how today’s presidential debates give only brief views of candidates' ideas, focusing more on catchy lines and appearances than on meaningful talks about important issues.
From the story:
The event, of course, is the presidential debate. But like much of politics, that title is more rhetorical than reality — at least compared to the construct of how most debates are conducted...
Presidential debate formats, said Kevin Sauter, professor emeritus of communication studies at the University of St. Thomas, “are a stilted idea of what a real debate actually is. In these relatively limited periods of time, when people get a chance to have a question asked of them and then respond, we’re getting just a glimpse of what they’re thinking. And what we end up with over almost all debates is a headline, and I don’t know that there’s any real substantive discussion of the policies that each of them propose.”...
Regarding human nature, “Do we really understand policy positions from these [rebuttals]? No, I don’t think we do, but we do get a sense of character,” said Sauter. “And I hate to say it, but I think we’re seeing it in part for the entertainment value.”
