The press reports on political campaigns these days as if they were chess games.
Conclusion
Campaign advisors should stay out of the limelight so that the press can report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken.
Evidence
The press currently treats campaigns like chess matches between advisors, ignoring substantive policy issues. Voters lose because they need substantive information to make informed decisions but are getting only process coverage.
Evaluate
The author's proposed fix presupposes there are revealing substantive positions for the press to cover once advisors step back. If candidates have not in fact taken any revealing substantive positions, then sidelining the advisors solves nothing — the press would have nothing of substance to report on. So the argument quietly assumes that candidates have taken substantive positions worth reporting.
Goal
Find the answer that captures the unstated assumption: candidates have actually staked out substantive policy positions. Negation test: if they haven't, the proposed fix collapses.