Rudy vs. Romney I learned from a recent class reading that debates are “pseudo-events”, meaning events staged specifically for the purpose of media attention, non-spontaneous and excessively dramatized. Not the best form of journalism, that, because there it is pretty low on the substantial and information scale.

That is, of course, a little disheartening from a journalist’s standpoint, especially considering I sit through every minute of every Presidential candidates’ debate. I even watch the extended analysis that follows, but that’s mostly because I think journalists are smarter than politicians and if there was a debate for the media by the media, believe me, I’d be there. But then, that’s every talk show on broadcast news.

Now, getting back to my point, from the point of view of a journalist, you want hard, substantial news on the issues, with indisputable facts and logical reasoning. Not a wily slugfest about personality and character and beliefs and opinions.

But when you come across an exchange like this one, how could you possibly not enjoy it? Isn’t that why we love politics? Intense, impassioned, opinionated, subjective reasoning!



As Chris Matthews put it, inner-city grit vs. power point precision  ¶ 8:48 AM