Caller to Ed Show had a great idea. Ed blew him away.

[BlueStreak]

There are only 3 Presidential debates scheduled. Other than that, it is pretty mush 24x7 lies by the Ryan/Romney campaign and surrogates, and a string of softball appearances on Faux "news".

The caller suggested that MSNBC should challenge Faux to a duel -- an extended debate format -- MSNBC puts up 4 players and Faux comes with their best 4. This could be billed as supplemental to the candidate debates, and could potentially get very good ratings if features on both networks.

Of course Faux would run away from that challenge, which is the whole beauty of that idea. Challenge them. "The people at Fox talk a lot, but they are afraid to show up for forum where facts can be challenged and debated without any bully tactics. What is Fox afraid of?"

And if Faux won't do it, maybe MSNBC and other networks (CNN, ABC et al) could come up with Battle Royale format that would conspicuously leave Faux out.

I thought this was a great idea. I don't think there is any possibility that Faux would show up because they cannot defend their BS and that can't risk getting their butts kicked so visibly. But just making the challenge serves a useful purpose. Perhaps it would shake loose some Faux views who don't want to be associated with cowards.

I was surprised at how quickly Ed blew off this caller. I'm not sure he got the concept.

Any ideas? Could something like this work?

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Maybe you ought to lay it out in more detail

& run it past Ed again plus whoever else you can think of.

This could be a small step toward getting the money out of the campaign cycle.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. I admire Ed and what he is trying to do - but have noticed for some time

that a more complex or nuanced idea - and I've heard some great calls get kind of blown off also - don't always resonate very well. My take is that he gets prepared and on a tangent and maybe doesn't improvise his thoughts so well on occasion....but who knows.

Not the first time I've been a bit frustrated with Big Ed's reaction - but at least he tries really hard for the good guys and succeeds most of the time, I think.

[ann---]

6. I think

he's a whiny big baby and don't watch or listen to him.

[mountain grammy]

3. Occasionally, Ed misses the point his caller is making

but it's only occasionally, and he usually recovers nicely. I heard the debate guy too and thougt it was a great idea, but Ed was probably correct.

[global1]

4. I've Been Noticing That Ed Seems To Like To Hear Himself Talk.....

the other day Johnathan Alter was on and Ed cut him off and talked over him. It was clear that Alter was noticeably upset cause he wanted to make a point. I listen to Ed's radio show as well and many times he is short with his callers. It's been getting very annoying lately. Ed if you read this - please let your guests and callers talk and make their points. Don't cut them off mid sentence and try and finish their thoughts or add yours. You need to be a little more polite.

As for the Original Post here - probably somebody was whispering in Ed's ear to move fast and past this great idea. I don't think the MSM gods/bosses would be for such a thing.

[Unite2DefeatGOP]

5. Ed needs brighter blue contacts. That will help him immeasurably.

[summerschild]

7. Ed has seemed a little distracted ever since he returned

after his wife's surgery. Right now, I think his heart and mind are on her.

I just hope she's doing well.

But, yes, I've yelled "shut up, Ed!" more than once when he began repeating parts of a rant while drowning out a guest with new information I really wanted to hear.

[ailsagirl]

8. Definitely, I'm sure he's not doing that great...

since his wife's surgery. It's got to be very difficult.

Needs to be taken into consideration

[BlueStreak]

11. My point was not to attack Ed, but to call attention to what I thought was a great idea

[ailsagirl]

12. Understood

It was a good idea. Too bad he dismissed it.

[WI_DEM]

9. Not likely to happen so Ed blew it off because he is practical and knows a non-starter when he hears

it.

[BlueStreak]

10. It is not likely that Faux would show up, but that wasn't the caller's point

The point is to call out the bullies. And who knows, it could develop into an interesting and informative show if some of the other networks partnered on it.

I see no reason to dismiss the idea out of hand. The worst that can happen is exposing Faux as cowards and bullies.

[shanen]

13. The rightwing has the more skilled propagandists

I agree with almost everything Ed says, but he doesn't say it very well. However, at least I can listen to him without getting nauseous, which is the effect of 10 seconds of Rushbaugh or crazy Beck.

I actually sent him a similar idea via email, but of course there was no response. Here was my idea:

Whenever a news commentator plans an interview segment with a Democratic candidate, they offer to split the time with the opponent. They should keep the rules simple, but give slight incentive to the second one. For example, let's say they can schedule a 4-minute interview starting with the question "Will Obama's health care reform actually reduce medical care for seniors?" It is NOT a speech contest, and they have to limit their answers for the time and expect the interviewer to do follow up questions. After one side has accepted, the other side will get an offer to respond in half the time, and to give them the incentive, they can ask that their interview go first or second, or they can tape it--but they cannot reply directly to each other. The idea is to just offer them equal opportunities to address the issue but with the knowledge that they may get challenged for obvious lies and thus waste their time.

I think in general the Democratic candidates are willing to address the issues, but the neo-GOP politicians will refuse. That's fine. Then instead of two 2-minute interviews, there is only one 4-minute interview, followed by the statement "The opponent Mr A was given an opportunity to answer this same question, and declined to do so."

Not sure, but this is possibly something that could be done if just one side adopts it. If this succeeds in creating an impression that they are cowards who are afraid to address the issues, and if it starts showing up in the polls, even FAUX News might have to go along.

[BlueStreak]

14. I like the idea. Here's another variation.

I assume each of the three big debates will have its own theme or subject (foreign policy, economics, health care/safety net). How about a collaboration of the networks to have a debate of the subject (not fighting about the various candidates positions) the night before the candidate debate. The goal would be to try to attract low-information voters and give them a quick education on the issues.

To attract an audience, it would need to be presented as a sparring match, but I think that could be done by fighting about the issues, not the personalities.

The key points would be that it must be fact-based, and no bully tactics would be allowed. The different positions would be well represented and have a fair chance at making their points.

Each network already does a pre-debate show usually, but I find those not worth watching. I doubt the networks would be willing to give up a 60-minute prime time slot the night before each debate, but maybe they would be willing to do this cross-network "Issue smackdown" as their pre-debate program.

If we assume Faux will be too cowardly to show up, that could be reason enough for the "real news networks" to have such a collaborative program.

[Motown_Johnny]

15. Who would moderate?

And which channel would carry it?

[BlueStreak]

16. Lots of options

Let's say MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and PBS all agreed to do this, they could all air the program as their build-up to the debate.

As far as moderator, if there were three of these programs, then there could be 2 moderators for each program -- a team approach. And that would allow each network to have a moderator on one of the programs.

The key thing would be to have an actual debate format. No cutting away for interviews. No time wasted with talking heads regurgitating what was said.

Maybe the debaters aren't all news network people. Maybe they could include professors and others who can adequately represent a position.