Did I say there are no possible solutions? You confuse emphasizing something in an article with "gapping" on it. No article can talk about everything. I focused here on the strange public demand to be lied to by politicians on TV, which accounts for why journalists still interview them and fear losing access to such powerful, big-name guests, in the capitalistic setting that's made the news a business.
But the idea of threatening politicians with perjury seems fanciful to me. Only the powerless politicians or nominees with nothing to lose would take part in such a legally-binding debate. Those in power would say that secrets are needed to protect "national security."
Of course, there's already a tradition of televised political debates, and it's instructive how politicians gamed that system, making a farce out of these debates. They negotiated on a format that makes telling the truth impossible (because each politician can speak for only seconds at a time, and because there's hardly any back and forth between the candidates, due to the moderator's interference).
Solutions are theoretically possible, but that doesn't make them realistic.
