The debate& The candidates

You can modify this assignment to address candidate positions based on background research, rather than using the debate, in this case focus on the second set of questions. The due date has been extended to allow for this research. The goal of this discussion is to gain a better understanding of candidate positions in the areas of information and media policy and begin to assess the role of these issues in upcoming election. Answer the following questions:

• In what ways, and to what extent were issues related media, communication or information policies addressed in this debate? For example, did any candidates speak to issues such as: misinformation/fake news, cyber warfare, foreign (digital) interference in the election, vulnerability of e-voting machines, data security, privacy, surveillance, net neutrality, broadband/internet access, job displacement, AI, social media regulation, online hate speech (etc.)?

In three to five paragraphs please answer any combination of the questions below. This means you may focus on one or two of the questions below, or briefly speak to all three questions.

• In your opinion, did either candidates have a particularly extreme or radical positions related to media and information policy? In other words, are any of the candidates calling for solutions that would dramatically change the status quo, or approaches that might interfere with, or weaken our Constitutional Freedoms? Identify which candidate(s) and summarize their argument.


• In your opinion, were any candidates particularly persuasive in their argument? In other words, did one or two candidates have strong arguments, backed by evidence, and/or well thought out policy solutions to address the issue? Describe the problem and solution as articulated by candidate, and explain why you found their position persuasive.


• In your opinion, did any candidate seem especially misguided, unaware or dismissive of any of these issues. Identify which candidate(s) and outline the reason(s) you found their answers or positions unconvincing.