A debate hosted by WOLV-TV, March 10,
between the Michigan Student Assembly presidential candidates did
not further the dialogue on campus concerning elections. The
ostensible purpose of the debate was to acquaint student audiences
with the candidates and their differing platforms. Lasting no more
than 30 minutes, the debate merely consisted of three short rounds
of questioning. Moreover, the debate was held in a closed studio,
not in a public forum where people could witness it.

The debate began amid questionable practices, as WOLV-TV
released a preliminary copy of many of the questions to Michigan
Student Assembly President Angela Galardi, who is a member of the
Students First party. While WOLV-TV later released the questions to
the other political parties after being criticized for allowing
this access, it is troublesome that one party may have had more
time to prepare. WOLV-TV did not disclouse the Daily editor’s
questions, as they were not provided to the station before the
debate.

The first round of questioning, led by the debate questioners
— including The Michigan Daily editorial page editor —
gave the candidates a chance to introduce themselves and their
platforms. Each candidate chattered away, explaining why he was the
best candidate, giving information that has been cluttering campus
walls and lecture halls for the past week.

Many questions came from the WOLV-TV questioner. While debates
demand tough questions, this debate was sorely lacking. Many of the
questions were already familiar to the candidates, and the debate
was rendered pointless by this fact. Viewers want to know whether
or not a candidate has a sincere understanding of campus issues,
not if he can research the answers the night before the debate.

The fact that the candidates had access to some of the questions
that were going to be asked prior to the debate undermines its
purpose. Debates are not supposed to be easy. Each candidate much
be challenged, having his strengths and weaknesses revealed.
Otherwise, the debate will be nothing more than a four-paneled
press conference with all smiles and no substance. More discussion
and less boasting is a more effective way for candidates to shine
for their supporters.

Further, the segment for direct questioning was too short at
only 9 minutes, and candidates were not able to give substantive
explanations for why they held their views. More time was needed
for follow-up questions and a more comprehensive discussion.

Thirty minutes is hardly enough time for a productive debate to
take place, especially when candidates are expected to address such
pressing issues as budget cuts, affirmative action and MSA’s
effectiveness. Candidates need to be able to better develop
arguments against their opponents so that viewers can see why they
stand out.

The televised debate had many inherent problems and overall
proved to be a venue not for intelligent dialogue but for evasive
answers to trite questions. Prior knowledge of the questions
weakens a debate. However, this can be remedied with more time for
the candidates to interact with one another’s ideas. While
there were some open disagreements between the candidates, there
was not enough time for an enlightening discussion.