Skip to content
Subscribe

Presidential Debate Leads to Shallow Discussion

Published:

Credit: Cagle Post

debate issues

In the wake of Wednesday night's spectacle, a surge of presidential debate political cartoons have flooded the internet that reflect an American public disillusioned with the debate and its format. The presidential debate and the political cartoons that became of it highlight the lack of substance in our political discussion. Many news outlets have characterized Romney's presence as aggressive and commanding, labeling him the "winner" over Obama in their first spar. From his body language, to his attacks on Obama, to the way he treated the moderator, Jim Lehrer, most commentators have given Romney high marks. Most of the criticism of Obama was over what he did, not what he said.

The media has criticized Obama's own performance as defensive and unprepared. And while the media focused on the candidates' moves and words, many of these cartoons focus on the current debate format's ineffectiveness at providing an informed and accurate depiction of the candidates and their policies. Neither depicted the candidates' stances on national issues.

Lately, there has been increasing criticism over the "non-partisan" CPD for perpetuating the two-party monopoly over our political discussion. Some argue that it is this bipartisan discourse that is largely responsible for the gridlock that has left many Americans disillusioned with our government. In many ways, Wednesday's moderator Jim Lehrer reinforced this throughout the debate by repeatedly asking Romney and Obama how they differed on specific issues. In many cases, Obama and Romney's policies are almost identical. Again, neither the media nor cartoonists focused on these important points.

Credit: Cagle Post

fact checkers

During the debate both candidates took liberty with exaggeration and truth. In many cases, the two candidates simply talked over the moderator or "pivoted" on his question. Cartoonists were quick to critique, and the reality in the press is that confidence and style has become more important than substance. Wednesday's debate generally followed a single pattern: a few talking points for each candidate, followed by personal attacks and a quick quip. With broad media exposure and quick access to information, any actual discussion of the issues was lost in the commentary on literal performance.

In the last twenty-four hours alone, hundreds of memes have poked fun at things that have little to do with real policy discussion. Like the media storm created by Romney's "47 percent" controversy, popular culture surrounding the presidential election is what holds the public's short-term interest. In the meantime, many voters are still waiting for a real discussion of the country's long-term health. Caption: Cagle Post

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Presidential Debate Leads to Shallow Discussion

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us