(667 words, three-minute read)

The utter vacuity of the modern media-as-entertainment complex was on full display during the last two debates in Nevada and South Carolina. This time it was NBC and CBS who assembled politically correct, “everybody-gets-a-turn” panels of entertainers to preside over a reality show they call a presidential debate. In these debates, candidates arrive prepared with carefully rehearsed sound bites hoping to score points that the same media will applaud in their solemn postmortems. The ratings-driven networks accommodate with non-substantive formats, requests for one-word answers, shows of hands, and other techniques that demean the process and preclude serious discussion.

Outgunned and outplayed by the candidates who are rewarded for ignoring the ground rules, the panelists fail to extract direct answers and fumble follow-up questions. Playing both prosecutor and judge, they then pronounce winners and losers based on their own entertainment standards.

When all the fun is over, the public is the loser. This is no way to pick a dogcatcher, let alone a president.

There are so many things wrong with the media’s management of the process it is hard to know where to start. But let’s begin with a simple observation. Once groundbreaking but surely now generally accepted is Harvard Professor Howard Gardner’s identification of multiple intelligences. In his 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, he points out that there is no single measure of intelligence. Rather, we all have various intelligences. Gardner identifies eight: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic.

Thanks to his work, we now know that to ask if someone is “smart” or not is in fact not a smart question. The real question is “Smart in what way?” Relevant to this discussion, some of us are glib and quick on our feet, others not. Some, like me, like to think carefully before responding, have a high standard for accuracy in word choice, and have an aversion to oversimplification of the complex. The debate stage as designed by the networks would not be kind to my collection of intelligences.

How does this relate to choosing a president? The critical question is, what are the intelligences or capabilities needed to not just win the presidency, but succeed at it? Let’s propose that the answer includes judgement, analytical ability, ability to choose and lead a team, executive capacity, consistency, and the ability to generate trust and confidence, to name a few.

How many of these can one display during a one-minute sound bite? Or by a show of hands? Or by a one-word answer? Or when being incessantly interrupted? Furthermore, nowhere on this list is the ability to memorize one-sentence attack lines, interrupt, grossly simplify, and distort the complex. But that is exactly what the debate format encourages. These then are the same irrelevant criteria that pundits apply to declare winners and losers. (We addressed the fallacy of this question in our August 11 Commentary “As Pundits Ask, “Who Won the Debates?” We Say, “Wrong Question.”)

Based on these criteria, the general consensus following the Nevada “debate” was that Bloomberg “lost.” And when evaluated on this basis, he surely did. But having said that, did we learn anything in the process about what skill he would bring to the presidency? Did we learn anything about what enabled him to become one of the most successful entrepreneurs of our time? Anything about his considerable philanthropy, or efforts on climate change, or gun control? Did we learn anything about how he really ran NYC other than sound bites about stop and frisk? After all, his twelve-year record of managing one of the most complex and diverse cities in the country surely involved more than that. Sadly, we did not.

Here is the last point to consider. As often in life, the talent needed to get a job is not the talent necessary to do it or keep it. The proverbial Peter Principle captures this reality: people are often promoted based on the skill they demonstrate in their current job without regard for the skills required by the new job. The same is surely true of the presidency. The extraordinary and sometimes grotesque gauntlet that we put our candidates through proves who can master and endure the gauntlet, not who can be an effective president.

Unless the media begins to act more like the journalists they claim to be and provide a sounder analysis of who demonstrates the qualifications necessary to actually succeed as president, we will be left to determine who can do so without them.