National Conventions

Peggy Noonan wrote the following in the Wall Street Journal:

      "Finally, the big broadcast networks plan to give the Republicans (and the Democrats) only one hour a night of TV coverage.They used to give all night, long as it took, and treat the proceedings with respect. What they give now, to the people of a great democracy fighting for its economic life in an uncertain world, is . . . an hour a night? For a national political convention?

     This is a scandal. Mock them for it. This isn't Edward R. Murrow in charge of the news, it's Gordon Gekko in charge of programming."

 I grew up a political junkie, and loved to watch the conventions on TV.  But there was real drama back in the 50s and 60s at conventions.  First of all, there many times was unclarity as to who would be the ultimate nominee.  Many states would support "favorite sons"--state politicians--so that when they would get to the national convention they could use their bloc of votes to garner favors.

There would also be serious debates about the platform.  I can't recall in the last 20 years where this has happened. Ergo, we know the nominees and there are no serious policy debates.  So with all due respect to Noonan, the conventions have no political importance.  Why then should we watch?