
Only fools rush in (and watch presidential debates live) - jal278
https://worldbetter.svbtle.com/only-fools-rush-in-and-watch-presidential-debates-live
======
emptybits
The article makes a good point. But one reason I favour watching such an event
live is to get ahead of the mainstream analysis before it starts to influence
me. i.e. I only have one shot at a blank slate and first impression

This is similar to why I might want to watch a popular film on opening night,
before the rest of the world declares it a winner or loser.

The headline and "winner"/"loser" judgements of tonight's debate will be loud
and unavoidable by tomorrow morning. Their impact can be insidious.

------
ceor4
People are going to want to watch the debates live for the same reason people
want to watch sports live. You can argue all you want for why a post-processed
sports game is going to be so much better, but the truth is that's not what
people want.

And the sort of people who are going to want to read a fact-checked version of
the debate are in the tiny minority and likely well-informed enough that they
have completely made up their minds well and truly before the debate.

I do however think that fact checking is an absolutely great idea, it just
needs to be done live. There could be a fact checking team which can interrupt
candidates with objections, or ring a "pants on fire" bell, or something
entertaining.

~~~
jal278
The difference between sports and debates are that the post-processing in
sports isn't going to change the most important "outcome," i.e. who won.

But post-processing when it comes to debates can mean overlaying information
on top of the video that identifies clear falsehoods -- undermining a
candidate's ability to play fast and loose with the truth to win, knowing that
there's no real penalty for doing so.

So the "winner" might emerge differently if for example, news agencies didn't
publish the live video, but each agency did independent fact checking (if the
video were under embargo) and then each published annotated and unannotated
versions.

You could still watch the vanilla version if you wanted to, but at least there
would be widespread access to factually vetted versions as well.

------
2AF3
I'd rather make up my own mind than have the cultural mandarins tell me what I
should think. Honestly, if us plebs can think for ourselves, maybe we
shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I'm wondering if Hillary can stand up
for 90 mins straight since she obviously has a debilitating neurological
issue.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8)

------
flycaliguy
I've been watching a lot of Scott Adam's periscope videos about Trump as a
"Master Persuader" and although Im not sold on the premise, it has made me
reconsider the real role of a president. A job beyond detail work and one
instead of setting direction and tone. It has definitly got me watching the
campaign in a different way and I'll be watching the debate tonight with his
periscope feed on my phone.

Adams, creator of Dilbert, has a track record for predicting Trump's moves. He
has a theory worth looking into about Trump's church pastor as a youth being
Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. Adams is a
trained hypnotist and detects in Trump the influence of Peale's techniques.

That said, I'm not American and enjoy my political theater with a pinch of
conspiracy theory, so... grain of salt.

------
massysett
Or here's an idea: I can watch it live _and_ read the analysis afterwards? No
wait, that would make me a "fool".

------
jolokino
.

~~~
jal278
Aren't there some set of claims that a candidate makes that nearly everyone
can agree are objectively false? What's wrong with annotating a debate with
that sort of information?

------
a-no-n
This title is more apropos:

ANALYSIS | 13:37 GMT First Debate Between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich

[http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/first-debate-between-
giant-...](http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/first-debate-between-giant-douche-
and-turd-sandwich-201609261337)

