Only fools rush in (and watch presidential debates live) | Hacker News Reader

Only fools rush in (and watch presidential debates live)

worldbetter.svbtle.com

21 pointsjal27811 comments

The article makes a good point. But one reason I favour watching such an event live is to get ahead of the mainstream analysis before it starts to influence me. i.e. I only have one shot at a blank slate and first impression

This is similar to why I might want to watch a popular film on opening night, before the rest of the world declares it a winner or loser.

The headline and "winner"/"loser" judgements of tonight's debate will be loud and unavoidable by tomorrow morning. Their impact can be insidious.

People are going to want to watch the debates live for the same reason people want to watch sports live. You can argue all you want for why a post-processed sports game is going to be so much better, but the truth is that's not what people want.

And the sort of people who are going to want to read a fact-checked version of the debate are in the tiny minority and likely well-informed enough that they have completely made up their minds well and truly before the debate.

I do however think that fact checking is an absolutely great idea, it just needs to be done live. There could be a fact checking team which can interrupt candidates with objections, or ring a "pants on fire" bell, or something entertaining.

The difference between sports and debates are that the post-processing in sports isn't going to change the most important "outcome," i.e. who won.

But post-processing when it comes to debates can mean overlaying information on top of the video that identifies clear falsehoods -- undermining a candidate's ability to play fast and loose with the truth to win, knowing that there's no real penalty for doing so.

So the "winner" might emerge differently if for example, news agencies didn't publish the live video, but each agency did independent fact checking (if the video were under embargo) and then each published annotated and unannotated versions.

You could still watch the vanilla version if you wanted to, but at least there would be widespread access to factually vetted versions as well.

I'd rather make up my own mind than have the cultural mandarins tell me what I should think. Honestly, if us plebs can think for ourselves, maybe we shouldn't be allowed to vote. Personally I'm wondering if Hillary can stand up for 90 mins straight since she obviously has a debilitating neurological issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8

I've been watching a lot of Scott Adam's periscope videos about Trump as a "Master Persuader" and although Im not sold on the premise, it has made me reconsider the real role of a president. A job beyond detail work and one instead of setting direction and tone. It has definitly got me watching the campaign in a different way and I'll be watching the debate tonight with his periscope feed on my phone.

Adams, creator of Dilbert, has a track record for predicting Trump's moves. He has a theory worth looking into about Trump's church pastor as a youth being Norman Vincent Peale, the author of The Power of Positive Thinking. Adams is a trained hypnotist and detects in Trump the influence of Peale's techniques.

That said, I'm not American and enjoy my political theater with a pinch of conspiracy theory, so... grain of salt.

Or here's an idea: I can watch it live and read the analysis afterwards? No wait, that would make me a "fool".

Aren't there some set of claims that a candidate makes that nearly everyone can agree are objectively false? What's wrong with annotating a debate with that sort of information?

We've banned this account for doing this repeatedly.

This title is more apropos:

ANALYSIS | 13:37 GMT First Debate Between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich

http://www.fxstreet.com/analysis/first-debate-between-giant-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com