If it please the court, I’d like to argue a brief on behalf of The Advocates.
It’s a series whose time has come. Again.
The Advocates was a weekly public-TV presentation from 1969 through 1974 and was revived as a bi-weekly for most of 1978 and ’79. Co-produced by Boston’s WGBH and Los Angeles’ KCET, it came to be known as the “PBS Fight of the Week,” and while the pugilism was all verbal, serious blows were landed. More than one partisan hotshot left the arena with his or her ego bruised.
1979 – The Advocates In Brief – Should the Constitution require a balanced budget?
The Advocates was more illuminating than the so-called “debates” among Presidential contenders we see on television every four years. At its best, The Advocates was as much fun to watch as a courtroom sequence on Law & Order or Boston Legal.
As the recent telecasts involving Republican hopefuls underscore, televised debates are rarely more than opportunities for candidates to recite their respective talking points and bumper-sticker slogans. And the journalists whose questions they try to sidestep seldom challenge dubious statements or push for detail for fear they’ll look biased or mean to viewers who already mistrust them.
The Advocates’ format dispensed with the interlocutors and left the debaters nowhere to hide. It recast debate as mock trial, with an “attorney” for and against a question presenting expert witnesses to help make his or her case
The series attracted top-tier participants. For instance, when The Advocates put the Equal Rights Amendment on its docket, the lead counsel in favor of passage was Eleanor Smeal, then president of the National Organization of Women, while the opposition arguments were framed by Phyllis Schlafly, the formidable head of Stop ERA.
The Advocates never won an Emmy, perhaps because there was no category for it. It did win one of the University of Georgia’s George Foster Peabody Awards after its first season on what was then still the National Educational Television Network, forerunner of PBS. The Peabody board’s citation called it a “series of bold, invigorating debates of crucial issues” grounded in the producers’ belief “that in a courtroom atmosphere such controversial problems as abortion, smog versus the auto, the use of marijuana, or the danger of offshore drilling could be dramatized and reasonably, if hotly, discussed.”
Note that most of the hot-button issues the board mentioned have, if anything, gained a few degrees with the passing years. The format could be employed today to air out issues ranging from the credibility of global-warming science to the smartest way to deal with Iran’s nuclear pursuits. The Advocates could “try” the realities and misconceptions of the Affordable Health Care Act or even the overall success or failure of the current President’s administration.
Moreover, the potential for public participation in The Advocates is much greater now than it was when it last aired, more than 30 years ago. We’re well into the age of instant communication, live coverage of high-profile trials and non-stop punditry. If the American public can cast votes by phone by the millions for their favorite performers on American Idol and Dancing with the Stars, why not use the same phone system get an indication of how citizens views various issues and controversies before and after they’ve watched courtroom-style testimony and cross-examination? Who knows, maybe a portion of the revenue from the phone votes could be applied to election costs or federal deficit reduction?
So, in summation, somebody in the public television system or, if they’re lacking in funds or ambition, somebody at a cable news network should consider reviving The Advocates. It was born in the late 1960s, a time of division, protest and upheaval in America. Watch video of New York police clearing Zuccotti Park and tell me a revival is not overdue.
1979 – The Advocates In Brief – Should we legalize marijuana?
1979 – The Advocates In Brief – Should the USA Support Palestinian Self-Determination?
1979 – The Advocates In Brief – Should America require compulsory national service?