BY DAN VALENTI

PLANET VALENTI NEWS AND COMMENTARY

(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 16, 2015) — THE PLANET knew our declaration of a “winner” in Tuesday’s “forum” would upset, rile, and puzzle people who automatically assumed we would go into the event with concreted presumptions. Obviously, that wasn’t the case.

We declared Dan Bianchi the “winner” of Tuesday night’s mayoral forum. How dare we?

‘I Did a Double-Take’

The following two comments exemplify the criticisms aimed at yours truly. The first came from a PLANET reader. The second came from a Pittsfield office holder.

COMMENT 1

Here’s the second, from an Insider:

COMMENT 2

you must have seen a totally different debate than I saw last night.
[Bianchi] couldn’t even give a straight yes or no answer on closing a fire station….dude, come on, I’d think you’d demand better than that.

Right, as if giving a “straight answer” is suddenly in fashion in politics.

THE PLANET went into the debate pretending we hadn’t heard of any of the four —  Bianchi, Linda Tyer, Donna Walto, or Craig Gaetani — determined to judge simply by what we observed at the time on the merits. It’s clear, however, that many “in the stands” couldn’t get out of the way of their own biases.

A ‘Winner?’ How So? THE PLANET Explains

That being said, for you to understand our declaration of Bianchi as the “winner,” you have to grasp how we measured it and by what standard. Our reply to Comment 2 gets at this crucial point. THE PLANET wrote to the sender:

I wasn’t reporting on the quality of the responses (emphasis added). The words the candidates used were of no consequence. They were dead on arrival due to an awful format and a moderator who wasn’t up to the task. I was simply going on style points, and there’s an overwhelming probability that the election will be decided this way. You won’t agree with that, but you are not qualified to know by virtue of your office and being plugged-in to the process and the nature of politics in a near functionally illiterate population. 

In other words, under the arbitrary and inflexible format, the event had no chance to produce a “debate.” Candidates were restricted to 90-second responses, there were no follow-ups, and no opportunity for the back-and-forth that reveals where candidates stand and how they differ.

Having moderated, hosted, refereed, and officiated countless political debates, THE PLANET knew the moment moderator Bill Sturgeon cast the first jittery question that viewers would be fed rehearsed snippets read straight from the notebook. Literally. For the audience, this type of feeding resembled the slopped and plopped chow line in a prison than a decent meal at a good restaurant.

Those sharp enough to read between the lines of yesterday’s review of the “forum” realized what THE PLANET meant in declaring a “winner.” Electorally no one “won” because the stultifying format made victory impossible. This left us with the next best thing: Style points.

Theory and Reality Are Two Different Places

In theory, THE PLANET agrees with those who say it’s not a good way to elect people to office. In practical terms, though, as long as citizens are fed the kind of pap on display yesterday — from the organizers, moderator, and hapless candidates imprisoned in the amber of forced predictability — veneer becomes the determinant. For Bianchi and Tyer, this didn’t matter much, if at all. They had one goal last night: Survive.  It’s the same goal until Tuesday, Sept. 22. Avoid the “gotcha.” Don’t make The Big Blunder. Play if safe. Say little. Duck substantive inquiries. Keep it bland, banal, and non-controversial. And so when we declare “victory” only the surface comes into play: Compared to Tyer (fervent but over-rehearsed and under-coached) Bianchi was smooth and most polished.

For the record, Tyer’s best line came when she addressed the lack of progress at the PEDA site: “Time is important. No more excuses.” Bianchi’s best came in clever shot aimed at Tyer’s personal relationship with Barry Clairmont. The mayor acknowledged his 35 years of marriage and stable family life. He didn’t mention either Tyer or Clairmont. He didn’t have to. Below the belt? No. Politics no longer has a belt.

For Walto and Gaetani, format mattered a great deal. They were forced to play under house rules, and for outsiders of their sort — the kind who won’t buy into time-honored, established, orthodox campaigning — that’s fatal. Good riddance to Walto. How can you take some seriously if they show up late for an event like this?

In the end, the candidates were lined up at the table like four cantaloupes. The shoppers could inspect the outside, examine the surface, and tap the skin, but they weren’t allowed to get inside to see if the fruit was good or rotten.

——————————————————————————————————-

“A lot of idiots you are, selling your birthright for a saucer of cold porridge.” — Prison Chaplain (played by Godfrey Quigley), from Stanley Kubrick‘s A Clockwork Orange (1971).

“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”

LOVE TO ALL.

The views expressed in any comment section are not those of PLANET VALENTI or endorsed in any way by PLANET VALENTI; this website reserves the right to remove any comment which violates its Rules of Conduct, and it is not liable for the consequences of any posted comment as provided in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and PLANET VALENTI’s terms of service.