Com 450: Politics and Media

Televised Presidential Debates

Copyright, 2002   Janet McMullen, Ph.D.

 

Brief History of Presidential Debates:

The 1992 debates were significant in that one research study suggested that 20% of the viewers either made up their mind about a candidate or shifted from on candidate to another as a result of having watched the debates (Poynter, "Why..." 1996)

The Bush-Dole debates were not noteworthy for any gaffes or breakout performances. Both did well, but Clinton continued to demonstrate his telegenic abilities. Bob Dole, on the other hand, appeared reserved and stiff by comparison, even though he got some notable and humorous sound bites. (Nichols, 1996)

All debates in 2000 were 90 minutes in length.  Jim Lehrer moderated the presidential debates, and Bernard Shaw was moderator for the vice presidential debates.

George W. Bush wanted a more informal format and did not want to participate in the CPD scheduled debates.  However, he ultimately agreed. 

Debate Structure:

Traditional Debate contains five elements:

Adapting the classic form to television has involved the assumption of the audience's short attention span and the desire to see conflict/clash.

Result: formats have let events become something like a boxing match---waiting for "score"

Role of Panelists: Has been a source of difficulty:

Questions have put panelists in 3rd-party contentious role

Selection of Debate Questions

Selection of Panelists:

Moderator:

Role of audience members: Can be a problem, through boisterous reaction to comments (1988 debates)

Agenda Control: Who wants to achieve what from the debate?

More than one agenda at these events:

Research has shown that candidate DO manage to control the agenda of a debate even though panelists and moderator are controlling the questions. In one study of a 1976 debate, andidates controlled the discussion 63.7% of the time.

In 1981, a study reported of the 1980 debates:

"Both candidates did what they had to do in order to keep their public role/image in tact and attempt to denigrate the other's role/image. They did this by coming to the "debate" with a script of canned, predetermined dialogue that they managed to use, however slight the pretext of is relevance to the question being asked by the panel of news persons."

Other researchers expand the agendas to SIX, adding the following three agendas:

In interesting perspective has been offered by Ritter and Hellwig who draw a difference between TELEVISED DEBATES and TELEVISION DEBATES.

Televised debates: are presented from the perspective of the audience; the television camera is covering an event, rather than creating one.

Television debates: an undisguised "creature of the medium" --  Political talk show created by and for the media

These usually occur in primary debates, but as candidates go on talk shows more and more, we're seeing this form becoming more prominent.

Primary debates are usually more informal than general election debates.

A lot of discussion has been offered concerning how to improve debates. Some of those include:

See Web site for Commission on Presidential Debates for "facilitator guides"

All students are required to visit the Commission web site and the Debate location web site.

THE VERBAL COMPONENT OF DEBATES:

Source: Chapter 3 (Helwig)

The verbal component of a debate includes:

The basic content of the debate (the words)

The role of the questioners

The political context of the debates

In general election debates, what variables impact the verbal component?

As early as 1960, researchers noticed that candidates were trying to impress viewers with HOW they debated rather than WHAT they debated. (p. 38 for quotes if desired)

Information presented was not seen as important in the discussion of issues, rather than as an indicator of WHAT KIND OF MAN the debater was:

"Information relative to the candidate's stand on issue is interpreted as evidence of the kid of man the candidate is in respect to his potential electors, not as proof of his qualifications to hold presidential office per se." (McBath and Fisher, 1969 p. 59)

"The precision and accuracy with which a speaker develops and supports an argument may reveal as much about his character and intelligence as a direct personal reference.....Kennedy's personality produced the greater persuasive effect in the televised debates." (Rosenthal, 1963 p. 195)

In 1976, considering Ford's relationship to Nixon (the pardon), image WAS THE ISSUE! Carter was perceived as being AS QUALIFIED as Ford.

"In the absence of burning issues in a campaign, the voter's perception of a candidate's personality is the most crucial factor in determining a wavering vote." (Lesher, Caddell & Rafshoon, 1979, p. 141)

Issues functioned not so much in their own right, but as cues to the competence of the candidate:

That's why Ford's blooper was so significant. His press secretary, Ron Nessen, later said, "The controversy over Eastern European gaffe was not about hte President' policy. The real damage of the Eastern Europe error was that it revived doubts about Ford's intelligence and competence."

With the Reagan Carter debates, the situation was similar....

Reagan...."was the classic defensive boxer, maintaining his cool and sticking to his basic fight plan. In short, his image was that of a candidate playing the role of a deliberately genial and smoothly competent challenger, adroitly fending off or evading his opponent's grim-faced attacks, and counter-punching just often enough to satisfy his fans." (Auer, 1981 p. 20)

Reagan's personality was so warm, Carter didn't stand a chance.

But others contend that Reagan won on the issues as well. But that pointed wasn't discussed nearly as much as the success of his "great communicator" image.

Gladys Lang has written: "Insofar as debates increasing have been produced with an eye to projecting personal images...the viewers are being wooed not so much as an electorate but as an audience (1987, p. 213)...[As a result] what matters most to them is not the substance of WHAT the candidates say in these debates but HOW WELL they say it and whether the candidate projects the image he strives to project."   

Neil Postman would have some comments about that, and that premise seemed to be upheld in the Bush-Gore debates of 2000.  While two of three debates, Gore was determined to have won the debate points, after debate polls saw Bush draw a lead.   Gore was seen by the audience as being arrogant, elitist, talking down to the audience, and inconsistent personally.  Bush, on the other hand, while not as articulate as Gore, was seen to be sincere, capable and trustworthy.

Debates also reduce the differences between candidates.

Researcher Dale Herbeck wrote that Dukakis didn't do well in the debates because he didn't understand the reality of the debates -- He treated them as real debates on the issues, and as a result he wasn't as concerned about the image factor, and he came across as being stiff, boring, and insensitive.

When he made the response that he wouldn't want the death penalty for the person who in a hypothetical situation raped and murdered his wife, he lost the voters! He was answering in his "benevolent technocrat" mode--about what he thought--, and the public was more interested in how he felt!

"Thus Dukakis was caught in a paradox, while he argued well in traditional terms, "his language choices reinforced the image of a technocratic passionless leader." p. 44

QUESTIONS: Panelists and moderators ask the questions and influence the content of the debate

Problems:

One researcher wrote: "Not once in the 270 minutes of the 1988 debates did the a journalist simply ask a candidate: "What is your position on such and such an issue" p. 54

Strategy and tactics:

Ex. in 1980, Reagan asked voters to ask themselves the question: Are you better off than you were four years ago? Clinton seems to be employing the same strategy. Dole may be asking the same question, but from a cultural perspective?

THE VISUAL DIMENSION:

( Resources: Chapter 4 Helwig; Chapter 3 Patterson)

When discussing the significance of television it is important to remember that information is processed differently with when it is televised. Television stress the visual over the verbal.

Joshua Meyrowitz (1985) has written that as a result, television creates a different type of message:

Other research has shown that receiver involvement with this type of message is not the same as with the printed word. More cognitive effort and activity is involved in the verbal or written messages. Television messages can be processed with much less of both. That means that visual messages can be more quickly comprehended and retained!

The following progression has subsequently occurred:

1. Recognition of the visual nature and cognitive receiving processes of the viewer were identified.

2. Candidates formulated messages to best meet the requirements of the medium.

3. The entire nature of politics and political messages have changed from on of serious evaluation of issues to one of more superficial nature, based on impressions, feelings, and televised information.

What happens is that you can't argue with an image. Postman writes that the Federalist Papers, the Lincoln-Douglas debates and even the Fireside chats were VERBAL, and thus could be logically analyzed and refuted.

Today, messages, due to TV, are largely based on image, and therefore cannot be refuted.  

Peggy Noonin wrote an interesting commentary on the visual presentation of the candidates in the Bush-Gore debates.  She wrote in the Wall Street Journal, regarding Mr. Gore, " -- his demanor and way of presenting himself--undercuts and puts the lie to the meaning of hofhis whole campaign. Mr. Gore n his very Gorey-ness steps on an obliterates his own message.  His lack of good naure become a lack of good faith."  She went on..."The message of the campaign is: I will be just. But he can't mange to be fair to George W. Bush.....His message is: I will be sensitive and kind.  And then he attempts to menace and intimidate Mr. bush by creeping up behind him and, as we say in New York, invading his space.  Mr. Gore's message is: I care for the little guy and not the powerful, and then in his power sit with the five foot shoulders he turns and looks with derision at the little guy, Mr. Bush"   She went on in the editorial to discuss Mr. Gore approaching Mr. Bush in the third debate while Bush was speaking.  Bush gave him a deliberate "sideways doubletake," the audience laughed and Mr. Gore withdrew   "......when the speaker for a philosophy has a personal that enhances his ability to communicate his programs and plans, that means something. It makes a difference. Mr. Bush does.  Mr. Gore doesn't."  (Noonan, 2000)

That whole debate offers a lesson in semiotics and non-verbal communication.

Further more, it is difficult to explain complex issue ON television, so less information is presented.

RESULT: Voters are much less informed than they have been in the past EVEN THOUGH we have more forms of media and information dissemination than ever before.

TELEVISION LEADS TO A PERCEPTION OF INTIMACY:

Reliance on the visual combined with the possibility of close-ups.

The viewing context

(Hellweg, p. 76) 

It is probably this intimacy that served Mr. Gore ill in the 2000 debates.  Especially in the first debate, his mannerisms, which may have worked well on the stump, seemed exaggerated and insincere on television.   Mr. Bush's more laid back style, especially in the second and third debates served him better and presented a aura of confident relaxation.

IMPACT of the TELEVISION MEDIUM ON THE NATURE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES:

The MACRO View:

Scott Keeter: "The importance of candidate images--relative to other information--may be greater for voters who depend on television...Television by its nature provides a qualitatively different product. It provides the candidate as a person. This is a function of the visual and actual nature of television's content, and is reinforced by the practices of news organizations and personnel that serve to downplay cognitive content."

Graber: "When candidates for political office are shown on television..."audiences tend to judge the candidate's personality traits such as competence, integrity, leadership and empathy." (1987 p.77) p 82

These points are clearly illustrated by the 2000 campaign, especially the debates.

Rewards a More Personal, Casual Conversation

Television generates the illusion of interpersonal communication, so it requires candidates to communicate in that style.

Television elevates the Importance of the non-verbal stream:   

This involves the visual but also such things as inflection and vocalized pauses or sighs. Al Gore's sighs during the first debate proved to be a major factor in the negative reactions the audience.   Additionally, his heavy make-up on that first debate was also a problem for him, underscoring his grimaces.   Gore blamed TV cameras which he thought would not show him when he was not speaking. (Orin, 2000)

Television's ability to promote personal intimacy: (Close-ups, etc.) Richard Nixon wrote in 1987, "In the television age, a candidate's appearance and style count for more than his ideas and record." ( p. 79)

Promotes a New Style of Political Discourse

Enhances the Impact of Source Factors:

Television also works to undermine the role of content:

Edwin Diamond and Kathleen Friery wrote: "Television is an information poor medium: facts, statistics, charges, and counter-charges fly past the viewer, often too rapidly to be digested. But because television at the same time and emotion-rich medium, qualities of appearance such as "competence" and "trustworthiness" are easier to pick out. The media, by steering away from the facts, reinforce this process. (1987, p. 49)

A large body of research demonstrates that television steers people toward the non-specific aspects of the presentation: competence, image, etc. rather than hard facts, etc.

Rewards a More Personal, Casual Communication; because of its intimacy, it encourages an informal presentation.

"The success of any TV performer depends on his achieving a low-pressure style of presentation...The TV politician cannot make a speech; he must engage in intimate conversation. He must never press. He should suggest, not state; request, not demand."

The old oratory is too HOT for television. Old style used metaphors and contentious, verbally battling statements. That doesn't work on TV because people don't know how to listen that well. "Television works best if it is low key."

Ronald Reagan is the perfect example of this. One author wrote that he "did not have the elegance of a Winston Churchill or an Adlai Stevenson....He had instead a gift of intimacy, of plain speech, simple vision, and open feelings....His command of the medium was instinctive and sure." (1985, p. 29)

Another reporter described him: "The most revealing difference of all [between Reagan's live and televised image] was the faces of the two men. Reagan's face, as seen on TV, is expressive. The President doesn't just speak with words. He speaks with a frown, a smile, or an expression of "aw shucks." In the press balcony, what seemed like a pause was actually a moment in which Reagan was saying, with a facial expression or a head movement, "Why me?" or "How could you say that?" His eyes are lively, his cheeks are pink, and all this comes through in living color on television. Mondale's face, as seen on TV is unexpressive." p. 84  

Gore's mannerisms were similarly too "hot" for television in his first and third presidential debates. When he tried to "back off" in the second, the contrast between styles made people question his true personality, his strength and truthfulness.  

Elevates the Role and Impact of the Nonverbal Stream

Requires positive relational messages:

Relational messages are the "you-me" connection associated with a message

Relate these concepts to the to Dole campaign or to the Fob James campaign.

IMPACT OF THE VISUAL DIMENSION: A MICRO VIEW

How an event is shot can make a big difference in how that candidate is perceived by an audience.  Relatively minor changes is the visual presentation (i.e. camera shots) can make a big difference.

Camera Shots

Most favorable at 'eye' level.

Angle and eye contact: looking at camera makes best impression

Reaction shots

Number of shots: can increase perception of pace of debates

Candidate Strategies and Visual Image

Dress

Television News Coverage of Debates:

Impact of Presidential Debates

Viewership of debates has reached more than 100 million people.

In 1960: 80% of Americans watched

In 1976: 90% watched at least one debate

Numbers were down in the 1990s.  The third debate in 2000 had a rating of only 25.9, the lowest of any televised debate.  The previous low had been the second Clinton-Dole debate of 1996 which had a rating of 26.1. (Bierbaum, 2000) 

Largest Presidential Debate Audiences:

In 2000, 46.6 million viewers watched the first debate and 37.6 millions watched the second with slightly fewer watching the third.  

(Nielsen, 10/11/00 and 10/16/00)

Part of the reasons for lower viewership in 2000 had to do with the Major League Baseball playoffs occurring during the debates.  NBC did not carry the first or third debate, nor did Fox.  MSNBC carried the live coverage for the network while NBC gave affiliates a choice about whether or not to carry the debate.  Some did; some did not.  Fox offered the debate on a taped delay basis. 14 million people opted to watch the new Fox program, "Dark Angel."   An estimated 11 million people watched NBC and the American League playoff game. (CNN, 10/4/00) 

Fox elected to offer each candidate 30 minutes to answer the question, "Why should Americans vote for you?" This time will be made available Oct. 27 at 8 p.m. and each candidate can use the time as he sees fit.  Critics indicate the programs Fox plans to preempt include spots selling for $85,000 but "Dark Angel" spots sell for nearly $130,000. Had Fox aired the other two debates, it would have had to preempt baseball playoff coverage.  So while Rupert Murdoch classified this decision as public interest ["..I am directing Fox to give over a segment of its prime-time schedule to candidates so voters can hear directly from them, and make a better-informed decision......no filter, no interruptions from a moderator, the other candidate or the audience"], there are indications that it is cost-effective as well. (de Moraes, 10/3/00 ) 

Research about political debates tends to focus on what was said rather than how the medium affected the communication.

AGENDA SETTING:

Individuals have political agendas: What's important to that particular voter.

Do debates have effects on political agenda?

1976: While differences between candidates were emphasized, the political agenda did not appear to be greatly impacted.

1984: When Reagan didn't do really well in the first debate, "age" became a factor and an agenda issue in the second debate.

SOCIALIZATION:

Another area where debates can have impact is in the issue of socialization. How do they create expectations about voting behavior, candidate behavior and political issues?

LEARNING

Debates do help voters learn about candidates, issues and the processes of an election. Voters have demonstrated learning with regard to

But how much do viewers learn?

When do viewers learn from debates?

Generally context is a major influence as well

These same principles hold true of persuasion...

The more the audience has made up its mind, the less likelihood there is of persuasion.

The only real persuasive opportunity in a debate is with 'undecided' audience members.

Sometimes there is a time lag after the event; the persuasive impact isn't seen for up to two weeks after when opinion leaders have had their influence.

Conclusions about the impact of debates.

All of these issues are illustrated in the "debate to do" list for candidates in the 2000 presidential debates:

Dr. Mc's Debate To Do List for Campaign 2000

Mr. Bush Vice President Gore
Avoid mispronunciation Avoid: exaggeration
Avoid appearing uninformed Avoid inaccuracies
Avoid appearing nervous Don't interrupt or talk over the opponent
Avoid sentences that don't make sense Don't be too strong or overly aggressive
Do appear informed and intelligent Don't be boring or sing-song in delivery
Do appear to be "presidential" Don't talk down to the audience
Do be witty Do be likeable
Demonstrate integrity, trustworthiness Do focus on the issues
Be "grand" in the Ronald Reagan style Be spontaneous
Move toward the "center" to move Gore to left Don't memorize scripts
Be conversational Be conversational
Both Candidates 
Don't look at your watch
Don't perspire
Don't shift your eyes
Don't invade another's space
Don't make inappropriate or un-presidential remarks
Don't do anything stupid!
Avoid unattractive facial expressions


Walter Cronkite offers a perspective on the issue of debates:

" The debates are part of the unconscionable fraud that our political campaigns have become. And it's a wonder that the networks continue to cooperate on their presentation. There has grown up a belief on the part of the sponsoring groups and the networks that it's worth any compromise with the candidates in order to get them on the air together at all. This is highly questionable.

"As long as we accept this as a fact, there is little likelihood that we will ever get meaningful debate and that television will be used as it should be used to inform and educate our citizenry."

"Here is the means to present to the American people a rational exposition of the major issues that face the nation, and the alternate approaches to their solution. Yet the candidates participate only with the guarantee of a format that defies meaningful discourse. They should be charged with sabotaging the electoral process." (Cronkite, 1998)

Be sure you read the REST of Mr. Conkite's statement on debates in that chapter. P. 61

Powell and Cowart classify debates as 'critical events' in Chapter 14 of their text, Political Campaign Communication.  They emphasize that timing for such events is crucial, and that two weeks prior to an election is a prime time plan such an event. You'll notice as you look at the timing of presidential debates that the last always falls within that period.  The gubernatorial debates in 2002 were held just under two weeks prior to the November 5th elections.

Sources and Links:

Note: Some links may no longer be effective and are provided as a resource citation.

Primary resource for debate information:

Commission on Presidential Debates at www.debate.org

Project Vote-Smart at www.vote-smart.org

Debates: History (CNN) at www.cnn.com/ELECTION2000/debates/history.story/intro1.html  This is an excellent source with links to listen or view some of the debates.  There's also a great chart which summarizes all of the presidential debates.  Excellent resource for your files.

 

Copyright, 1999

Dr. Janet McMullen

Email Dr. Mc at The University of North Alabama at jmcmulle@unanov.una.edu

or at home at DrMcRTF@aol.com