Watch, regardless of channel

Angling for venues in which they would shine most brightly, Mr. Gore pressed for debates in large arenas and televised by every network, whether over-the-air or cable; Mr. Bush preferred the one-on-one intimacy of the interviewing style practiced by NBC's Tim Russert and CNN's Larry King.

If the Bush choice prevailed, the other networks whined, they would not carry the debates since it would entail, in effect, broadcasting another network's program. This, of course, refuted their oft-repeated declarations that they would be diligent in their coverage of the presidential race as part of their civic responsibility. Their declaration led some observers to fear that fewer Americans would see the debates since there would be tempting alternatives.

The insult contained in that worry was little noticed but needs to be attended to: that Americans, given the choice between learning more about two of the choices for president or viewing a rerun of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," will run in droves to the latter. The insult leads some politicians and commentators to insist on the necessity of forcing citizens to watch the debates by giving them little or no alternative programming.

Or perhaps it isn't an insult. Perhaps it is a recognition of a reality: that many people would prefer to remain ill-informed about the candidates and to vote out of that ignorance (or not vote at all).

This year, we have been engaged in a series of editorials urging Catholics to approach the ballot box this November with greater intelligence and discernment. When the debates are broadcast, whether on one channel or 40, we have the obligation to pay attention. Those who are tempted elsewhere can tape "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" for later.

Return to Home Page

(09-14-00)