Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
You’d think that when two folks get together to discuss important issues on a well-lit TV set, they’d talk like human beings, right? Wrong! What we often see is more akin to two chickens figuring out quantum physics. The latest spectacle, featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and an MSNBC host turning a discussion on vaccines and public policy into a verbal mud-wrestling contest, is enough to make you wonder if we need subtitles for conversations that are in English.
Oh, the joy of watching adults bicker like toddlers over who gets the last piece of candy! Kennedy, with his environmental lawyer swagger, stepped into the MSNBC ring – because that’s what news shows are now, rings – ready to throw his gloves off. He was there ostensibly to discuss something life-and-death serious, but hey, let’s make it about personal attacks instead, shall we?
The host, ready for a show, didn’t disappoint. Cue the dramatic music as he launches into a barrage of questions that feels more like a cross-examination during a litigation hearing. Maybe they should have just gotten a courtroom sketch artist to capture the scene instead of broadcasting it live.
It’s the usual dance. Host asks provoking questions. Guest deflects with all the grace of an elephant on ice skates. Audience gasps, laughs, and checks to make sure they’re still watching the news and not a new reality show. The discussion on vaccines? Oh, it got lost somewhere between the accusations and the personal digs. If you were drinking every time someone actually made a relevant point, you’d be as sober as a judge by the end of it.
But you know what? It’s alright because this is what passes for entertainment in the news today. Who needs comedians when you’ve got politicians and news anchors ready to step into the role at any given time?
The funny (or tragic, depending on how long you’ve been watching this circus) part comes when you realize this isn’t just about Kennedy and an MSNBC host. It’s the entire fabric of televised political discourse. It’s less Walter Cronkite and more Jerry Springer. Are we discussing policies, or are we handing out cues for when the audience should boo and hiss?
I mean, if we’re going to turn political debates into entertainment, could we at least get some better writers? The scripts are getting predictable. “Oh, here comes the part where he dodges the question. Wait for it… yes, there it is! Classic move!”
At some point, you have to wonder if they’re even trying to solve issues or just rack up views. Because if it’s the latter, bravo, a job well done! Get these folks an Emmy for Best Dramatic Performance in a Political Circus. Maybe then they’ll take a bow and get off the stage.
And what about us, the viewers, who genuinely want to understand what’s going on? Should we get referee shirts and scorecards? “I give this round to the host, 10 points for the sly dig!”
It’s a spectacle, all right. But here’s a thought – maybe, just maybe, we could try having an actual conversation. You know, where people talk about the issues instead of at each other. Where the point isn’t to belittle your opponent but to actually communicate with the audience. Crazy idea, I know. But it just might work.
Until then, we’ll just have to sit back and enjoy the show. Pass the popcorn, because apparently, that’s all we’re good for when we tune in. At least make it interesting. Throw in a trap door or something. Anything to break up the monotony of adults forgetting how to use their inside voices.
Source: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Scraps With MSNBC Host Over ‘Vitriol’ In Tense Exchange
