Maia Ferdman: Students must actively seek truth in debate
By Daily Bruin Staff
Oct. 4, 2012 10:12 p.m.
With the first presidential debate complete, the election season has reached its home stretch. Yet clouds of fancy political advertising, highly coordinated campaign speeches and blips of political rhetoric still linger in the air like bad Los Angeles smog.
Wednesday night’s debate should have represented a shift in focus from campaign rhetoric to rational debate. However, this distinction was not made clear by the candidates’ arguments. Rather, it was left for the viewer to decipher between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney’s one-liners.
On the surface, the debate seemed to be contradictory, confusing and wholly infuriating, made up of a storm of opposing sets of facts, obscure studies and unspecific accusations that were difficult for the average viewer to verify.
This roundabout style of debate will no doubt discourage students ““ especially the undecided ““ from watching the next round.
It’s true ““ these debates may feel time-consuming and unnecessary. But these spectacles are more valuable when viewed as a jumping point for further analysis and conversation.
In essence, it’s a shortcut for students to enter the political discourse.
UCLA’s residence halls hosted numerous viewing parties, drawing full rooms and sparking discussion among students.
Even if you’re in your apartment playing a presidential drinking game, you will inadvertently absorb the flash points of this election cycle.
But several obstacles stand before students hoping to use the debates as a springboard to in-depth policy analysis.
The first and most obvious roadblock is the sheer number of competing claims hurled at the audience Wednesday night by the candidates.
“It is asking too much of voters to be encyclopedias and have comprehensive knowledge of every aspect of the (issues) being discussed,” said Tim Groeling, a communications professor and chair of the department, who specializes in political communications.
In some cases, such as Romney and Obama’s scuffle over their differing tax plans, fact-checking can be helpful.
News sources like Politifact and the New York Times fact-check the debaters’ statements in real time, providing the investigative and concrete evidence students need to re-orient themselves with the truth.
A second answer can be found here on campus.
UCLA professors like Lynn Vavreck ““ an expert on the American electoral system ““ live-tweeted and blogged during the debate. Following professors’ commentary on the debate may give the event a more personal and relatable touch.
Forum and community-based sites, like Reddit and Twitter, added another dimension to civic participation, with ongoing conversations across message boards cross-checking facts and commenting on the commentary. The New York Times even involved readers by fielding questions about the factuality of the candidates’ statements.
However, valuable discourse can sometimes become muddled by frivolous commentary.
Still, most media outlets were quick to declare Romney “winner” of the debate. But by focusing on a “winner,” or on the candidates’ eye contact or perspiration, the conversation was effectively constrained to surface level.
It is vital that students watching the debates are actively wary of the candidates’ logical fallacies and manipulative emotional appeals ““ these are the tools of their publicity teams.
Their stance on policies, clarity in explanation and overall composure should take precedence.
So engage in your own debate and expand our national conversation beyond surface political jargon.
The debates will not spoon-feed us facts ““ we have to actively and critically find them.
Even in this political haze, there is still some grain of truth. We just have to dig that much deeper to get to it.
Email Ferdman at [email protected] or tweet her @MaiaFerdman. Send general comments to [email protected] or tweet us @DBOpinion.
