English Language Debate - Oct 7, 2019

jerrym wrote:

The debate format did not serve voters well, regardless of their political orientation. Allowing Bernier in the debate when he barely registers in the polls and spews hate was highly problematic. Six candidates on the stage meant that almost no issue got significant debate, and when combined with five moderators whose change every 25 minutes or so was a recipe for a mess.

Having no penalty for talking over others and only the pleading of the moderator to stop this meant that politicians, who make their living by talking, would continually violate the rules. It also meant that even when issues were discussed for a brief period talking over each other meant that viewers often couldn't understand what was being said

....The debate organizaiton process needs to be taken out of control of the government, no matter the party. 

You're right about the absurd structure of that show, but the debate commission, which originally left Bernier off the list, relinquished it's responsibilies to the networks according to this informative transcript from "As It Happens", which is worth an entire read for those interested: ....

CO: This is the first debate that was organized to this independent commission. It was, of course, something that was created by the Liberal government to have a process that was more fair because it had been considered in the past to be not fair. That there were too many influences too many personal or private interests that were involved in that. So that was how was decided. And it was to reach as many voters as possible. So how do you think it could have been done differently?

EA: Well, the reason was that a lot of people wanted to wrest control of these debates away from the television networks, who really try to impose a different kind of frame on what should be a public service exercise. There was a need to regularize the system, take it out of the hands of a consortium, and put it into the hands of the debate commission. That debate commission got formed, and promptly gave it back to the consortium. Declared it a journalistic exercise, and washed its hands of it. So we actually went in full circle, and we returned to exactly the problem we had before all of this started.....

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.531...

The who-can-shout-the-loudest contest is the CBC's fault and doesn't qualify for the name debate. 

Encouraging others to "jump in" with with an occassional avuncular "you can't all talk at once", the CBC designers of the brawl knew, and counted on, that "jumping in" would inevitably mean shouting matches.

Shamefully, the CBC has done this before, picking up on US shout-match programs designed to get eyeballs from viewers addicted to polorized and unintelligable conflict rather than an articulated conflicts of positions. 

It's not difficult to design a debate with varied time sequences of questions, challenges, answers and replies without privileging the most powerful set of lungs--but that might lower ratings and provide more information.

Misfit wrote:

I found Blanchet to be very arrogant and off putting. I liked Gilles Duceppe much better.

He is running for votes among francophone Quebeckers, and he knows it. He doesn't need to impress us because we don't make a difference to his political fortunes.

lagatta4 wrote:

KarlL, Thanks to you for helping those people in need. May I presume that they are a couple?

A spot of good news: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/toronto/article-toronto-syrian-re...

Yes, they are a couple, with three kids and a fourth on the way and both been fortunate enought to have siblings who have also made it to Canada, despite their having been split during the war between camps in Lebanon and Turkey.