Debating Debates: Are They Really Effective?

Have the presidential debates really helped civic participation or have the presidential debates created an opportune forum for politicians to exercise their sound bite media speeches. By allowing the candidates to dictate the terms that the debates take place under, Americans are missing out on true debate and lose out in the end. According to Thomas Hollihan’s Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, “these debates attract attention because they come as close to “good television” as political discussions ever can. They have a sense of confrontation and clash, there is a media buildup of anticipation and then, of course, there is a fallow up discussion of who won the debate. Most important for many viewers, there is a real sense of drama and the very real possibility that one candidate or the other will commit a major gaffe that might derail his or her candidacy.” (Page 223)
IF we fallow this flawed model, then no one wins in the end including the viewer. By framing the debates as a winner take all showdown surrounded by a three ring circus, it becomes impossible for viewers to truly decipher a candidates message make a judgment. In the end, potential voters find themselves watching another reality TV show, except the implications of this one don’t center around one million dollars, but they center around the potential leader of the country. If the debates continue to focus on spectacle and theatricality, then good decisions about candidates and their platforms will never be reached by the general public.

This clip of Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in their debate shows just how the spectacle of such an event can dramatically hinder the public thought based on a sound bite that was witty and well placed at the time. Ronald Reagan was an actor of great talents, he is also considered by many, or a select few depending on the side of the aisle, to be one of our greatest presidents. But this quote essentially killed Mondale and cemented Reagan’s bid to the White House. If we judged everyday occurrences on society on 10 second sound bites and not on the facts, then we would have much bigger issues at hand. Consider this video clip for instance:

In “Mr. Griffin Goes to Washington” Peter is able to rouse the crowd of dissenting opinions with a simple “come on” which is essentially what Reagan is doing. He’s committing a fallacy of not addressing the question but in fact flipping it in his favor. This is seen as god TV for the commentators who hope to “pick a winner” but by running this clip over and over, the media just reinforced the fallacy and boost the vote for Reagan cause “gosh darn it he’s funny!”
More recently, we saw the same line of attack used in the vice presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. Palin again uses some “provocative” language to drive home her point and yet delivers it with a candor that would have you believe she is competent and well informed on many issues:

Wow, “raping the environment,” by using such crass language Palin is able to avoid elaboration and exact numbers in explaining herself which she’s done of a lot of since, and hopes that a witty comment will win her an election. As we know, McCain and Palin lost the 2008 election, and in later events the former governor of Alaska chose to resign for “personal reasons,” thank god going rogue has been such a success, oh wait… Well there’s always 2012.
This is partially to blame because of the speaking time limits candidates are given, it’s like an amateur comedian going on at a night club knowing he has 3 minutes to deliver some laughs. According to Hollihan “many critics have also complained that candidates in these debates are given little opportunity to develop sustained and well-reasoned arguments because their speaking times are so short.” (Page 228) A study done on audiences during the Carter-Reagan debates during the 1980 presidential race looked at “when a candidate used evidence or analysis to support his position and whether the use of either evidence or analysis actually enhanced the appeal of the better-supported argument.” (Page 229) The results concluded that viewers could correctly identify support versus analysis, but were just as likely to be influenced by an argument without evidence as an argument with. (Page 229) So if the general public are not able to distinguish between a valid argument and an invalid argument that takes place in a debate, how are they making the correct and informed decision when they make it to the polls?
A problematic effect of these debates is what Hollihan refers to as mixed data that results from these debates. “The data are mixed in terms of explaining how a candidate’s debate performance will affect voter choices.” (Page 233) This stems from fact that most people who watch the debate are already partisan in their views and is in-fact watching to reinforce their choice and not be swayed according to Hollihan. So if political debates are shown to be just as ineffective as the campaign commercials that flood the airwaves, why are they framed as the monster sized events that they are.
According to Hollihan, in 2004 John Kerry was seen as the winner of all three debates over President George W. Bush, but the title of “debate winner” did little to help him win the election in the long run. Again, if one candidate can be seen as the “winner” in a debate and yet walk away from the election the loser, should the national media put so much emphasis on the debates. By framing them to be grudge matches and boxing titles, aren’t we cheapening the experience of allowing the candidates to talk on an open platform about important political and social issues. We limit their time for them to get their “punches” in and then ring the bell when we might actually see a leveling blow.
“Observing televised debates and then talking about the issues that emerge in those debates informs voters about the issues, mobilizes them towards action, and helps citizens develop the skills necessary for self governance… Participatory democracies require these conversations,” according to Hollihan, but at what point as a people do we decide that sometimes the framing of these issues is not properly done? Are we as a people having the right discussions after debates or are we allowing the media to shape their agenda by framing the debates in their own way? Can we be considered a responsible democracy by allowing the discourse that takes place about the debates to be framed and shaped by the very rules that create the sound bites within the debates? Or as citizens is it time for us to realize that the debate is only as informational as the media and candidates want it to be, and do we take the initiative to find the information for ourselves and ignore the witty banter to get to the bottom of a campaign platform?