It was also possible that the debate would revolve around the "Scandal Themes" offered by the campaigns and echoed with relish in media narratives. The candidates "loaded for bear" certainly lashed out with "pox on your house" exchanges, rehearsed to accuse the accuser (strategically designed to neutralize the potent issue).  Surprising these exchange, while reported almost verbatim, occupied a supporting role to the prime organizational theme, audience interaction as critque of the charges and counter claims.

Another likely scenario was that the newspapers would simply report what was said, avoiding naming winners and losers, neutral in fact and form. While the articles did have a listing of what was said quality and were arguably "neutral" they tended to land punches for (and against) both candidates.

I remember few, if any instances where political debate reporting found the audience the central actor or at least the metaphor for the debate's meaning or stand-in for campaign momentum.

The Great Falls Tribune was rather direct, leading in part with:

The contentious topics of health care, Jack Abramoff and the national debt drew nearly as much comment from a restive audience as from U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and his Democratic opponent, Jon Tester, when the two met here Sunday . . . .

Despite cautions to hold their applause to the end of the debate, members of the enthusiastic crowd punctuated Burns' and Tester's responses with cheers, as well as boos and catcalls -- mostly directed at Burns from an audience heavy on Tester supporters. Afterward, Burns' wife, Phyllis, confronted Tester and called some of his remarks concerning her husband, "unreal."

The Missoulian observer Betsy Cohen also led with audience but in fairness let much of the article recount the sharp exchanges on ethics.

Republican Sen. Conrad Burns told a boisterous crowd in Hamilton on Sunday that he's the candidate for U.S. Senate who is not "a lawbreaker."

Members of the audience took offense and shouted "psycho" and booed as Burns claimed that Democratic Senate candidate Jon Tester has an illegal slush fund, has taken "unreported" trips to Taiwan . . .

Matt Gouras - Associated Press Writer weighed in

U.S. Senate hopeful Jon Tester opened a Sunday debate here with GOP incumbent Conrad Burns by going on the attack in front of a boisterous crowd, saying Burns has been changed by Washington, D.C., and has sold out to wealthy interests. Burns fought back by questioning Tester's ethics.

The two sparred for more than an hour in an auditorium filled to capacity by an estimated 800 people. Tester supporters at times laughed at Burns' statements, booed or shouted him down.

The crowd in Hamilton clearly favored Tester. At times, jeering and heckling forced Burns to cut short his statements.

Tester's words usually drew applause and cheers.

Greg Lemon, a Montana blogger with New West was more direct and specific

They both wore nice suits, cowboy boots and had their families in attendance, but the debate Sunday afternoon between GOP Sen. Conrad Burns and Democrat Jon Tester highlighted their differences and was extended by repeated comments, cheers and boos from a packed Hamilton Performing Arts Center.

The first hint of the wildness to come were the 100 bright yellow T-shirts Tester supporters handed out at the doorway leading into the auditorium. They said "Fire Burns," in flaming read letters.

Burns' supporters were outnumbered at least 2 to 1 in the overflowing center, which seated 700 people. As many as 200 people were eventually turned back at the door by Hamilton police officers who tried hard to keep fire escape routes open.

Later he wrote:

Again Tester's supporters booed and jeered Burns.

"I believe in light bulbs and sunshine," Burns said above the noise.

He then accused Tester of unethical doings, including illegal foreign trips and phone calls to raise money.

"When you look at everything, maybe I'm the only one here who's not a lawbreaker," Burns said.

This brought a raucous round of boos and shouts from Tester supporters.

My interpretation that the audience was the central player in the reporting may be nothing more than misperceiving the common practice of using the story lead to situate the scene or it could be that the reporters were faithfully reflecting what actually happened in the hall. Yet elevating the audience changes the political import of debate, which is good or bad depending on your perspective.  Factors that become important to the narrative include the decorum appropriateness, the sense of momentum, who was fair and unfair,  moral/polite , thin skinned,, defining it as a people's election, a ground swell or hall packing, etc.  These judgments often absent in reporting become the message when the audience was elevated to controlling agent.

Some may wonder if I can fairly comment.  After all, I worked in 2004 campaign on behalf of a lifetime friend Republican Bob Brown. For the record, I have no ties, official or unofficial, with either the Tester or Burns' campaigns. In this race I am an academic separated by 3000 miles who brings a little experience with how the Montana press covers political debates.