Posted 4 years ago on March 19, 2016, 8:03 a.m. EST by ChicagoCitizen
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
One extremely frustrating aspect of American politics is candidates being able to avoid answering questions. Typically a candidate will be asked something that makes him or her uncomfortable by a reporter or a talk show host. Then the candidate will either ignore the question or launch into a short prepared speech that has little or nothing to do with what was asked. Reporters let them get away with this because they fear being cut off from future access to the candidates. Talk show hosts do the same because they have a constant need to fill time, and, if they are too aggressive, candidates will not return for future shows. There is a way, however, to make a “candidate” answer questions. But, since it would be quite expensive, it should be used sparingly.
As we know, one of the two 2012 presidential candidates told a number of whoppers and suffered very few negative consequences. To avoid a similar situation this year, I propose that an on-demand webcast be produced to expose the candidate who is the bigger liar of the 2016 presidential race (i.e., the LIAR). I will refer to this webcast as the SHOW.
Here is how the SHOW would take place:
Preparation for the SHOW
Though not glamorous, one of the first things needed is research to determine whether the SHOW is legal and what the potential losses could be if the LIAR decides to sue. If that research produces favorable results, the SHOW could proceed.
Then the LIAR himself or herself should be asked to participate in the SHOW. The LIAR should know that the taping of the webcast will last for hours and he/she will be required to give full and pertinent answers with no evasions. It would be wonderful if the LIAR accepts and appears on the SHOW, but the odds against that happening are extremely slim.
The next preparatory step for the webcast would be to hire the actors who would portray the interviewer on the show and the LIAR. I call the latter actor the PSEUDO-LIAR (i.e., the PL).
Finally, research must determine exactly what the LIAR has said and what questions he/she has evaded. Based on that research, the Show’s script will be developed.
The SHOW Itself
Assuming that the LIAR had refused to participate, the SHOW would begin with a narration stating that we believe that the LIAR has frequently not told the truth and has evaded answering important questions. The narration would continue by saying that the LIAR has refused to participate in the SHOW, and, so, we are forced to use an actor to portray the LIAR in order to explore what the LIAR has said and not said.
After the narration, the interviewer and the PL would appear. Whenever the PL is on screen, a disclaimer (which could prevent suits from the LIAR) would appear under him/her stating “This is not the LIAR. It is an actor portraying the LIAR. The questions being asked are based on news reports and what the LIAR has said or written or what has appeared on his/her Web site.”
The Show’s writers have a lot of options. It would, for example, be delicious to hear the interviewer yell “Shut up and answer the question!” And the webcast can show clips of the real LIAR evading questions, have the Show’s interviewer ask the same questions, and then berate the PL when he/she tries to evade answering. Then the SHOW can have a lot of fun asking the tough follow-up questions that the mass media avoid.
Also, there is no reason for the interviewer to refrain from saying something like “You are laying!” And it would be very amusing to hear “Sit your ass down,” when the PL tries to walk off the Show’s set, and the portrayed reaction of the PL to this could be priceless, as would his reaction to having the Liar’s lies and evasions exposed.
Costs and Benefits
Making SHOW would be expensive. First, there is the expense of paying the attorneys. And the time and money needed for research would also be significant, as would the costs of developing a script and hiring actors. Also, the production costs for shooting the webcast and putting it on the Web would not be minor.
However, the SHOW could produce some amazing results. Most importantly, it can expose the whoppers of the LIAR in a highly dramatic way, especially if it is promoted by the many Web sites that are passionate about the truth getting out. And if the LIAR objects to it and/or the mass media mention it, the helpful publicity would be tremendous, drawing in many new viewers.
There is still time to create the SHOW. After all, the LIAR presidential candidate has yet to be revealed (though there are very strong indicators who that may be).
However, I will not be the one to create the on-demand webcast since I have significant medical problems. I only hope that some individual or organization will explore this way to assure that the presidential election is decided by truth, and not lies.