Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Clarence · Aug 11, 2006, 09:42 pm

Look at how much attention the top reality shows get. Look how many people vote on reality shows and how well we get to know a person over the course of a season. Why not cover the presidential campaigns with such a show?

Why don't we use technology in a good way? Help us get to know our candidates. Every network would enjoy those kind of ratings. The cameras would be ever present during business hours yet not overly intrusive either. Also each network could set up various challenges. It be nice to spot the sore losers and winners and dangerous egos from the gitgo. Also their wives and partners would participate in the events. Even thier spokes people and such. The idea is ripe with ideas.

The show could start in the primaries and could kick off with an introduction to each candidate. We could learn who their base is. How they made the primaries. Family life ect. Follow the candidates from state to state and watch them work. Each network can cover the week's travels and speeches and edit it into a weekly program for the primaries. highlight their speeches that week and campaign challenges. We would meet their 'people' and know what kind of people they hire/attract. Also, the candidates know they will have to support the winner of the primaries later on and that will paint an even better picture of the candidates for the future. You could expect other parties to put together shows for PBS or something and also the networks could include the indies making the biggest waves along the way.

After the primaries they would be focusing on each candidate as they wage the war and pick their vps and raise money ect. Also, at this point the networks would be covering any of the independents who've gotten enough attention. The last month or so before the campaign, the shows should be bi-weekly like some of the other shows. When we go to the ballots, between the news coverage, pundits, and this show, we would know who we are voting for at least. Even if we still don't like the people.

I think the more candid coverage would force the candidates to be more honest during the election campaigns and also help hold them to thier word. People should be able to see their candidates operate in various circumstances. Different challenges could include humanitarian missions, puzzles, cooperation missions, and challenges that require creativity. Their spokespeople could have a challenge once in the primaries and once on the final leg.

The response, if done correctly, would be just what the doctor ordered. The shows would have to remain reality based and people would have to keep people honest about the show. The increased camera presence would help counter balance the staged moments and photo ops. The networks would be biased, of course, but it would be interesting to see how the different networks portray the exact same moments from the exact same camera perspectives and which parts of speeches are highlighted and which bloopers are aired. Like I said, the initial response would probably be a positive one.

The danger of this program is in its success (or it's excess). Picture the show becoming wildly popular and the parties increasing thier effort$ for the show and decreasing thier time 'pressing the flesh'. Soon, the entire campaigns are covered through even less sources and also completely controlled by networks. Candidates stop travelling as much. After america nods off agian, the syatem is hi-jacked even worse than currently. Possibly, a candidate could be fabricated and even totally false.

I'm looking for good reasons why this should never happen. pitfalls and whatnot. Also, I'm looking for barriers that would make this show difficult to pull off with postive honest results. In other words, why this show couldn't happen. Any comments welcome. Thanks

Chaossaber314 · Aug 11, 2006, 11:30 pm

We already have this. It's called the news.

If you want the comedic take on things you watch "Indecision 200-" on the Daily Show on Comedy Central.

CoffeeSaint · Aug 12, 2006, 12:39 am

Personally, I'm against anything that would increase the influence of television in our lives, and especially in our politics. I'd prefer it if candidates were banned from using television to advertise their campaigns -- but then, I'd prefer it if there were no television at all, at least no network television. That being unrealistic, though, I'll stick with the idea that we should minimize television coverage, rather than maximize it. Candidates should spend more time pressing the flesh, and there should be more print coverage of campaigns instead of more television.

another day · Aug 13, 2006, 03:47 am

Bad idea...introducing television just further manipulates the system. Television=Superficial.

People make superficial judgements on the president. Many people already are influenced by the looks of the president...I remember a 60 minutes program rating the potential presidential candidates and one of the categorys was Looks. Obviously this shouldn't really matter..thats not the point of a president, it's just our animal nature to lean towards more arractive people. If you introduce television you will emphasize those superficial aspects to voting that the dumb public will lap up. Not just looks but things like charisma, charm, voice, height (any short presidents?) and all the pure bullshit full-of-lies babble each will inevitably spout off to try and manipulate the public perception of them throughout the course of the show. And that's the big problem - the candidates and their teams will both be working their asses off at manipulating what the public thinks of them. Some of the public have a hard time distinguishing reality and television. Television is great because it can connect a person with things, people, places, far away, back in time, etc. But doing this kind of reality thing is a bad idea because TV as a medium is ultimatly too prone to tampering, and manipulation. Do you think all those dumb reality shows actually happened as shown? I'm sure many were full of scripted events, editing, etc.

Who would do this program anyways? Surely it would have to be collaborative with the government, so who would do it? I'm sure the government would somehow take control of the whole ordeal through some shady company and totally edit it, etc.

[edit] I just noticed everything I just said already happens through the news programs. But not to the concentrated degree this show would have.

**Jack** · Aug 13, 2006, 12:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: another day

Do you think all those dumb reality shows actually happened as shown? I'm sure many were full of scripted events, editing, etc.

On the subject of reality shows in general, you've mentioned one reason I've never watched any of the shows marketed as such. Reality? Give me a break. Even the promotional spots can't make me believe there's any reality involved.

Now I see we're to be blessed with another reality show based on a disfunctional rock star. First it was Ozzie, now it's “Gene Simmons Family Jewels”, on A&E no less. Art and Entertainment? I can't believe it will be either. It amazes and saddens me that anyone would give a moment's notice to this tele-trash. What possible enjoyment can be had from electronically peaking through someone's window? If that doesn't seem perverse it can only be because no one appreciates the voyeuristic element in these shows.

All those reality shows leave me with an overwhelming feeling of "Who Cares?"

lily · Aug 13, 2006, 06:47 pm

Quote:

Look at how much attention the top reality shows get. Look how many people vote on reality shows and how well we get to know a person over the course of a season. Why not cover the presidential campaigns with such a show?

Clarence......at first I thought this was a really dumb idea........but after giving it a second thought.....you just might have solved the issue of campaign financing!

Clarence · Aug 13, 2006, 08:19 pm

I'm not suggesting people vote through the show. I'm thinking that the increased coverage would make the candidates work a little harder. It would also be harder to maintain an image that wasn't real if they are on the camera more. I'm not really taking this seriously, but...the news is no more reality than reality shows. The leaders of our country should live inside a fishbowl even as they run for office. The president of our nation deserves to live in Ed TV. I think the competitions would be enlightenening in themselves. Just to see the person face and deal with a problem.

The idea is dangerous in the wrong hands, as with everything.

Just for s&g, what challenges would you like to see?

Aug 11, 2006, 09:42 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Clarence pregnant with truth Posts: 2,419	Reality Show Idea Look at how much attention the top reality shows get. Look how many people vote on reality shows and how well we get to know a person over the course of a season. Why not cover the presidential campaigns with such a show? Why don't we use technology in a good way? Help us get to know our candidates. Every network would enjoy those kind of ratings. The cameras would be ever present during business hours yet not overly intrusive either. Also each network could set up various challenges. It be nice to spot the sore losers and winners and dangerous egos from the gitgo. Also their wives and partners would participate in the events. Even thier spokes people and such. The idea is ripe with ideas. The show could start in the primaries and could kick off with an introduction to each candidate. We could learn who their base is. How they made the primaries. Family life ect. Follow the candidates from state to state and watch them work. Each network can cover the week's travels and speeches and edit it into a weekly program for the primaries. highlight their speeches that week and campaign challenges. We would meet their 'people' and know what kind of people they hire/attract. Also, the candidates know they will have to support the winner of the primaries later on and that will paint an even better picture of the candidates for the future. You could expect other parties to put together shows for PBS or something and also the networks could include the indies making the biggest waves along the way. After the primaries they would be focusing on each candidate as they wage the war and pick their vps and raise money ect. Also, at this point the networks would be covering any of the independents who've gotten enough attention. The last month or so before the campaign, the shows should be bi-weekly like some of the other shows. When we go to the ballots, between the news coverage, pundits, and this show, we would know who we are voting for at least. Even if we still don't like the people. I think the more candid coverage would force the candidates to be more honest during the election campaigns and also help hold them to thier word. People should be able to see their candidates operate in various circumstances. Different challenges could include humanitarian missions, puzzles, cooperation missions, and challenges that require creativity. Their spokespeople could have a challenge once in the primaries and once on the final leg. The response, if done correctly, would be just what the doctor ordered. The shows would have to remain reality based and people would have to keep people honest about the show. The increased camera presence would help counter balance the staged moments and photo ops. The networks would be biased, of course, but it would be interesting to see how the different networks portray the exact same moments from the exact same camera perspectives and which parts of speeches are highlighted and which bloopers are aired. Like I said, the initial response would probably be a positive one. The danger of this program is in its success (or it's excess). Picture the show becoming wildly popular and the parties increasing thier effort$ for the show and decreasing thier time 'pressing the flesh'. Soon, the entire campaigns are covered through even less sources and also completely controlled by networks. Candidates stop travelling as much. After america nods off agian, the syatem is hi-jacked even worse than currently. Possibly, a candidate could be fabricated and even totally false. I'm looking for good reasons why this should never happen. pitfalls and whatnot. Also, I'm looking for barriers that would make this show difficult to pull off with postive honest results. In other words, why this show couldn't happen. Any comments welcome. Thanks

Aug 11, 2006, 11:30 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Chaossaber314 The Cake is a lie... Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,388	We already have this. It's called the news. If you want the comedic take on things you watch "Indecision 200-" on the Daily Show on Comedy Central. What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?

Aug 12, 2006, 12:39 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
CoffeeSaint Moral Turnip Location: Oregon, US Posts: 2,283	Personally, I'm against anything that would increase the influence of television in our lives, and especially in our politics. I'd prefer it if candidates were banned from using television to advertise their campaigns -- but then, I'd prefer it if there were no television at all, at least no network television. That being unrealistic, though, I'll stick with the idea that we should minimize television coverage, rather than maximize it. Candidates should spend more time pressing the flesh, and there should be more print coverage of campaigns instead of more television. "Would you like some pie, Dr. Stark?" "Science is my pie. Curiosity, my sweet tooth. Knowledge is my candy."

Aug 13, 2006, 03:47 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
another day slipping sand Posts: 1,996	Bad idea...introducing television just further manipulates the system. Television=Superficial. People make superficial judgements on the president. Many people already are influenced by the looks of the president...I remember a 60 minutes program rating the potential presidential candidates and one of the categorys was Looks. Obviously this shouldn't really matter..thats not the point of a president, it's just our animal nature to lean towards more arractive people. If you introduce television you will emphasize those superficial aspects to voting that the dumb public will lap up. Not just looks but things like charisma, charm, voice, height (any short presidents?) and all the pure bullshit full-of-lies babble each will inevitably spout off to try and manipulate the public perception of them throughout the course of the show. And that's the big problem - the candidates and their teams will both be working their asses off at manipulating what the public thinks of them. Some of the public have a hard time distinguishing reality and television. Television is great because it can connect a person with things, people, places, far away, back in time, etc. But doing this kind of reality thing is a bad idea because TV as a medium is ultimatly too prone to tampering, and manipulation. Do you think all those dumb reality shows actually happened as shown? I'm sure many were full of scripted events, editing, etc. Who would do this program anyways? Surely it would have to be collaborative with the government, so who would do it? I'm sure the government would somehow take control of the whole ordeal through some shady company and totally edit it, etc. [edit] I just noticed everything I just said already happens through the news programs. But not to the concentrated degree this show would have.

Aug 13, 2006, 08:19 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Clarence pregnant with truth Posts: 2,419	I'm not suggesting people vote through the show. I'm thinking that the increased coverage would make the candidates work a little harder. It would also be harder to maintain an image that wasn't real if they are on the camera more. I'm not really taking this seriously, but...the news is no more reality than reality shows. The leaders of our country should live inside a fishbowl even as they run for office. The president of our nation deserves to live in Ed TV. I think the competitions would be enlightenening in themselves. Just to see the person face and deal with a problem. The idea is dangerous in the wrong hands, as with everything. Just for s&g, what challenges would you like to see?