it seems a tad unfair to expect the public to ponder weighty issues such as divining the "winner" of the american presidential debate. sure, self-appointed commentators on the airwaves do provide the necessary cues for the clueless, both before and after the debates. still, given the existence of exacting standards for pretty much everything in this world, it seems a bit odd that the participants in the debates are not graded by non-self-appointed experts according to strict, objective and of course scientific criteria. as the following from a recent BBC report indicates, the general public appears uncertain and confused.
"Half of uncommitted voters in a CBS poll said Mr Biden had won the encounter, with Mr Ryan receiving 31%. A CNN poll of registered voters said that Mr Ryan was the winner by 4 points."
how could this be? in the age of smart phones and drones that can be controlled from thousands of miles away, such fuzziness is not simply inexcusable but possibly not good for such a vibrant and healthy democracy. there is no reason why a commission, funded by the same corporate conglomerate that sets the rules and organizes the debates, to study the feasibility of creating metrics necessary for calibrating and grading each performance should not be struck. the criteria could of course include a whole range of variables - from whether the candidate does or does not make total eye contact with the camera while making a weighty point, to the measurement of facial contortions when making snide remarks or smirking. since the debates are recorded, the results based on objective fool-proof evaluation could easily be made available immediately after the jousting is over. like the photo-finish at the olympics. perhaps even faster. at some point, cheer leaders too could be added to enhance the super-bowl festive atmosphere. but, in the interests to objectivity and detachment, this ought to be done only after the technology to factor out the cheer leaders' sounds from the technological grading has been developed and refined enough to prevent bias.
in the unlikely event of a technological glitch, there's always the fool-proof totally objective criterion: "which candidate can you imagine having a beer with with?" quiz to fall back on.
"Half of uncommitted voters in a CBS poll said Mr Biden had won the encounter, with Mr Ryan receiving 31%. A CNN poll of registered voters said that Mr Ryan was the winner by 4 points."
how could this be? in the age of smart phones and drones that can be controlled from thousands of miles away, such fuzziness is not simply inexcusable but possibly not good for such a vibrant and healthy democracy. there is no reason why a commission, funded by the same corporate conglomerate that sets the rules and organizes the debates, to study the feasibility of creating metrics necessary for calibrating and grading each performance should not be struck. the criteria could of course include a whole range of variables - from whether the candidate does or does not make total eye contact with the camera while making a weighty point, to the measurement of facial contortions when making snide remarks or smirking. since the debates are recorded, the results based on objective fool-proof evaluation could easily be made available immediately after the jousting is over. like the photo-finish at the olympics. perhaps even faster. at some point, cheer leaders too could be added to enhance the super-bowl festive atmosphere. but, in the interests to objectivity and detachment, this ought to be done only after the technology to factor out the cheer leaders' sounds from the technological grading has been developed and refined enough to prevent bias.
in the unlikely event of a technological glitch, there's always the fool-proof totally objective criterion: "which candidate can you imagine having a beer with with?" quiz to fall back on.
No comments:
Post a Comment