Weeding Out the Hacks

I made a similar point at the end of this post about getting rid of hacks posing as analysts, so I have to agree with the spirit of this commentary:

Dialing down hack TV shows, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, Washington Times: If there is one thing ... Republicans and Democrats all agree about these days it is that there is too much polarization in public discourse; too much name-calling and not enough civil discussion of the issues. A key reason for this, in my opinion, is the nature of cable news, which thrives on 5-minute debates between polar opposites. There are several reasons why this is destructive. First, few intelligent arguments can be made in such a short time. ... you may only have at most two 1-minute segments in which to make your case. ... Consequently, one is usually forced to jump straight to one's conclusion in a cable news debate and assert one's points without being able to develop them or provide essential facts or the logical steps that might convince the open-minded, ignorant or undecided on your issue.

Another problem is that almost everyone who appears on television is now trained to control the agenda when appearing on camera. They know that when the camera is on them they can pretty much say absolutely anything they want. Often this means rote recitation of talking points that may have nothing to do with the issue at hand ... It is also easy to make outrageous claims and cite bogus facts or statistics in support of one's position, knowing your opponent may not have time to correct you. And even if he does, it prevents him from making the points he wanted to make and forces him to argue on your terms. ...

Further degrading the usefulness of cable debates is the fact they are often mismatched in terms of stature. On one side, you might have a college professor or think tank scholar who is a recognized expert in his field. On the other, you might have some nobody with no real expertise from an organization that exists only as a cell phone number to a booker. The debate format tends to make people believe the two are of equal stature, downgrading the views of the true expert while elevating those of the hack.

For this reason, I now demand to know who I may be debating before agreeing to appear in a cable debate. If it is not someone I recognize as a competent peer, I won't do it. Many others in my position feel the same way, which is one reason you tend to see fewer and fewer real experts engaging in cable face-offs and more and more nobodies labeled as party "consultants" or "strategists."

This is also due to the fact genuine experts too often agree on basic points even if they come from contrasting philosophical perspectives. They will at least agree on the facts and the proper analytical framework. Their differences are usually over orders of magnitude, not fundamentals. This makes bad television from the cable news channels' viewpoint, which craves fireworks and sharp differences. Shouting matches are encouraged, agreement is discouraged. Unfortunately, this leaves viewers left thinking there is no real truth and everything is just a matter of opinion, leaving them free to choose whichever side is most conducive to their own personal beliefs, prejudices or preferences.

I would propose cutting back on contrived debates. Why not interview those with opposing views separately and give each more than a minute or two to make their point without having to respond to another person's debating tactics? And why not encourage interviewers to intervene when blatant errors or falsehoods are offered as facts? I think these reforms would raise the level of discourse and the quality of those willing to appear on cable programs by weeding out some of the hacks whose only knowledge on a subject comes from their party's talking points.

I agree that this is a problem, and that hosts, moderators, and so on need to take more responsibility for the presentation of information and the content and structure of debates. But I suspect that if we went to a system where those with opposing views were interviewed separately and the off topic "talking points" and other parts were edited out, the complaint would be over the editorial decisions on what to cut and what to include, something that is less of a problem in face to face "live" debates.

I think the key is to have a credible broker in the middle of the debate however it is constructed, a knowledgeable professional who can control the debate, someone willing to ask tough, pertinent, challenging questions of both sides, and willing to allow time for an informed response. As we weed out the hacks, we can start with the hosts. Is there anyone that both sides trust? There are some hosts in that category, but not many, and that's a reason why the left and the right get their news and opinion, in large part, from different outlets. I think the majority of people would like to see honest debate on economic and other issues, but they are not sure where to find it.