The three presidential debates this year have provided a fascinating window into how much the broadcasting business has changed. These debates have been the most watched in history (more than 85 million viewers for the first; 66 million for the second) but also the most fragmented—the options for consuming the debates have been endless. More people could access them than ever before. You could stream on social media platforms through feeds provided by the platforms themselves; you could stream on social media platforms through streams provided by news outlets; you could stream on the web sites of the news outlets; you could watch on a smartphone, a tablet, a computer, or a connected TV device without cable; you could listen to them on the radio, or read a transcript in real-time.

But for all the talk of cord-cutting and new options to watch, a plain old television, through live cable, is still best for this kind of event. As it turns out, much like a paperback book, network television is still a pretty great technology.

Winning formula: TV + Twitter

For the first debate, I watched entirely on streaming players using social media. For the second debate, I listened entirely on the radio, without any visuals. I couldn’t see the candidates, and it changed a great deal. For the final debate, I initially had an idea to only follow on social media—that is, not watch or listen to it, but only read live tweets. I wondered: Can you get the gist of what’s happening just from seeing what viewers are saying?

The answer is no. I lasted all of three minutes. The tweets, no matter how pithy if you got the joke, are too dependent on already having seen the moment they refer to. They’re out of context otherwise.

Some tweets do provide full context—exactly who said a comment and what the comment was—but most assume that everyone seeing the tweet was also watching. For example, the many, many tweets about Trump saying “We have some bad hombres here” mostly just used the two words “bad hombres,” followed by a joke. If you saw these tweets without having seen the full comment, you’d be lost.

So I turned back to the television. I also had my phone in hand to view tweets (and send out some of my own) and this proved the perfect combination. After the first debate, I wrote about the two big problems with using Twitter’s video player: the stream of tweets beneath it are from the general public, with no option to tailor it to just people you follow; and you can’t write your own tweet while also watching. I tested it again: the problem persisted. The best option, therefore was to have two screens—it was the only option, really, if you’re a Twitter user.

And you want to be on Twitter during a debate. These three debates were the perfect evidence of how useful the platform is for gauging public reaction to a live event of major importance. For all the hue and cry over Twitter’s failure to grow its user base (and its revenue) fast enough, moments like a presidential debate show the service’s value; all you had to see was the vibrant, fevered activity to get it. Of course, that is Twitter’s biggest problem: it is mostly an echo chamber for members of the media, and it hasn’t translated its value well to the general public. It only has 315 million users, and anecdotally, most friends of mine who don’t work in tech or media still don’t understand Twitter or have any interest in using it; if they could have seen it during the debate on Wednesday, perhaps they’d be moved to try it out.

For a debate, real-time matters

Anyone could set up a live stream of the debates, and it seemed like everyone did. At one point during the debate, I checked Facebook on my phone. My entire feed was full of live stream posts from every news outlet I follow: CNN, New York Times, NPR, even the sports blog Deadspin was live streaming the debate. Take your pick.

But the video players were too noisy and cluttered. Just like on Twitter, beneath the video players was an endless stream of live posts from the public, along with emoji reactions that flew across the screen, blocking the video. It was a bad viewing experience.

The ability to watch the debate on your mobile phone, for free, using Facebook, is a wonderful tool that democratizes access to an important news event—it’s great if you can’t be near a television or a computer. But I can’t imagine why anyone would watch this way if you can get to a TV.

Another issue with the live streaming on Facebook or Twitter or any other site: there was, in almost every case, a slight delay from live television. And if you’re concurrently using social media, this delay, while small, matters. Social media happens in real-time: tweets are instantaneous and refer to moments that just happened—minutes later, they’re stale, in some cases. Watching on a delay from live is simply unacceptable. This was even the case on CNN: When watching using the CNNgo app for AppleTV, there was a bit of a delay.

In the end, for a debate, or live awards show, or playoff baseball game, nothing beats live television: up to the moment, clean, clear of comments from strangers or angry-face emojis.

Original, streaming programming from Netflix, Amazon, HBO, Hulu and others is on the rise. And there are more options than ever to stream live sports events, but still not every live sports event, and almost always, a cable subscription is needed to authenticate anyway. For sports fans and political junkies, perhaps it’s still not time to go cutting the cable cord.

—

Daniel Roberts is a writer at Yahoo Finance, covering sports business and technology. Follow him on Twitter at @readDanwrite.

Read more:

What it’s like to listen to Trump-Clinton debate on the radio

The good and bad of streaming the debate on Twitter and Facebook

The 3 biggest reasons NFL ratings are down

Why it makes perfect sense for Twitter to live stream NFL games