There is decent TV I could be watching people!!!

Know what makes me angry? Televised politics during Prime Time TV.

Last night I sat down with my wife to watch a couple of our favorite shows (House and Fringe) but low and behold when we looked at the guide a Presidential debate was coming on at nine, and that just made the night extra extra special annoying. Luckily, we had stuff on the DVR to watch or else Fox would have gotten an angry letter from me (yeah I would do that, I have the time).

So, the debate would have made up for a couple of hours of television but fox threw in the towel at the beginning of the night by airing an old (and I mean old like beginning of last season old) episode of house and it wasn't that good the first time around. So what that tells me is that the executives over at Fox figured out that nobody was going to be watching their channel that night. So I ask you (and them if somehow they end up reading this) why did they even bother airing the debate in the first place? There is no law that they have to. It's an option for any network to air anything other then their regularly scheduled programming. The sponsors of things like debates and even presidential addresses need to ask for air time. But, for some reason, they figure since the other networks are doing it they should too. If I were making money off people watching my programming, I would choose to air something that people will actually watch. Hell, they could have been the only network airing new programming at the 9 o'clock slot.

Which brings me to my next point. Why are the networks airing these things at all? They aren't even what they claim to be. A debate is supposed to be a discussion between two or more people, in which points and counter points are made. But, every time I tune into see even part of one of these things it's always the same formula. The moderator (or in last nights case a member of the audience) asks a question and then the candidate says... that's an excellent question, let me answer it by telling a story or fact that has nothing to do with the question you asked me (they don't actually say that but they might as well). And then the candidate recites from a talking point one of his lackeys drilled into his (or her) head and we all listen. Part of us says "oh he/she makes an excellent point" and we ignore the little voice in the back of our head going "they didn't answer the question".

That's not to say these things don't have merit, but they should be on a channel so people who specifically want to watch the "debate" can tune in and do so, while the rest of us can stick to our mind numbing regular reality escaping programming. There are like 6 cable news stations that I can think of off the top of my head, just air it on them and be done with it. That way you can build in your pundit commentary while the event is going on. Hell, you can even use a tellistrator to highlight the beads of sweat on the foreheads.

I know some people are going to say "But if you just air it on cable not everyone can see it" and I have two answers to that 1. Who in this country has TV and doesn't have cable or satellite or some other form of expanded tier programming? and 2. do we really want someone who gets all their political information from network news to be allowed to vote?