Academic journal article Social Education

Letters

Academic journal article Social Education

Letters

Article excerpt

Presidential Debates

As an educator, a subscriber, a Green Party member, and a politically active person, I was offended by the article in your September 2000 issue, "Presidential Debates: Not a Spectator Sport." It seemed that critical thinking skills fell short in supporting enthusiastically the Commission on Presidential Debates and its resources. I felt that the range of discussion provided fell short on the debate inclusion issue. Public polls (including one by Fox Network) show over 700% of the public interested to see a 4-way debate. Not even the fact that other candidates are running is included in your article, or in the websites on which CPD provides information, even though they are supposed to "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners," as your article said.

As Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan are saying tonight (October 2) on CNN's "Larry King Live" show, there is a stranglehold/monopoly on the entry into the presidential debates, with the key being held by the two major parties. It's unfortunate that a social studies education journal ran a story displaying the depth typically found in corporate-run and commercial-supported media about anything outside of the mainstream in U.S. politics. In fact, I thought it encouraged the "spectator sport" attitude that the title was poised to attack. Certainly, it did not appeal to kids or educators to critically examine the process in which the debate participants were chosen, nor to have input in this process.

I did enjoy many of the articles in last month's issue, however, especially "Selecting Presidential Nominees: The Evolution of the Current System and Prospects for Reform. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.