Editorial: No diamonds or pearls

Network’s shallow questions left the issues out of the Democratic presidential debate.

Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2007 | 3:51 p.m.

CNN missed a chance to engage voters in the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas last week. In one of the more obvious examples of the dumbing down of the debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked, "What is more important, human rights or national security?"

The assumption is that a complex issue can be boiled down to a simple this-or-that question, as if the presidential candidates were on a game show. ("Ill take human rights for $100, Wolf.")

Presidential debates have become nothing more than game shows. In the first Republican debate, aired by MSNBC, candidates were asked whether they believed in evolution - a show of hands settled it.

In a debate among Democrats last month sponsored by MSNBC, candidates were subject to a "lightning round." Sen. Barack Obama was asked, "How did this country get into a state where point-to-point air travel is no longer truly dependable, but more important, what would you be truly willing to do as president to fix it?"

He was given 30 seconds to answer.

Our nation faces a series of complicated and important issues that need to be addressed, from getting out of Iraq to improving public education. Yet in these "debates" the candidates are forced to offer sound bites, not solutions.

In Las Vegas, Blitzer interrupted a candidate who tried to wade into the issues around the controversial proposal to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

"But - because this is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer, either you support it or you oppose it," said Blitzer, asking for a "yes or no from everyone."

That is not a surprise considering this debate ended with the question to Sen. Hillary Clinton prompted by CNN officials:

"Diamonds or pearls?"

We would ask network executives if it is true that Americans are cynical about politics because, as these shallow "debates" show, networks care less about public policy than about creating headlines or "gotcha moments" for the next news cycle.

That's a yes-or-no question.