The staging of the debate was television unfriendly. The reporter's camera shots were always close-ups, oozing credibility. By contrast the candidates were left standing uncomfortably, influenced by the podium-mentality and a busy self-promotional background.  The arena, with the panel to the candidate's right, on what appeared a narrow staging area, encouraged the candidates to talk directly with the panelist, not the audience. Webb's advisors surely told him to speak to the camera and to the in-house audience.  He didn't.  Rather his presentation was one long--not very flattering--profile, better suited to a police lineup. Whatever one may think of Allen's presentational skills, and my opinion has long been critical, in this debate he did talk with his audience, appearing Senatorial.

There is no proof that the staging and format "made-the-candidates" appear as they did, but it may be a contributing factor. Why are sponsors imagination of what a debate looks like controlled more by the familiar than by staging in a way that enhances the flow of ideas and personality? The media's read of the debate should be interesting, but it is likely to be overwhelmed by the higher profile Meet the Press event a day earlier.
Post-Debate Coverage Post debate coverage, while limited, did recieve a story in Washington Post -(The Senator's Gentile Rebuke, By Dana Milbank). The exact question following the by now familiar Macaca racist question and conditioned apology, was:

" It has been reported," said Fox, that "your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forebears include Jews and, if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?" Allen responded, in part, "Why is that relevant -- my religion, Jim's religion or the religious beliefs of anyone out there?"

All of this seemed an appropriate response, even with continued bickering by reporter and Allen, but the reporters take, the essential focus of the Post article was Allen's anger; "Allen recoiled as if he had been struck." The Anger theme premeated the Post article, an afront to the beseiged reporter. Milbank continued with attributions for the "outburst" none of which included it might just be a question that merited being "punted" from the political dialogue:

Fox's question, while a matter of some intrigue, seemed out of place in the debate, which focused on more urgent matters such as Iraq. But Allen turned on the questioner with ferocity. He may have been irked that the question was a follow-up to one noting that "macaca" was a racial slur that his mother may have learned in Tunisia. He may have been concerned that Jewish roots wouldn't play well in parts of Virginia. Or he may just have been in a quarreling mood.

Reporter Fox is given the last word, again framing an understanding in terms of the candidates' motives:

Fox said her motive was curiosity. "I thought it was important to find out is this part of his heritage, because if it is nobody knows it. Do you deny part of your heritage for political reasons?"

The reporter even gets to present the "proof" that this debate was about one candidate's Anger (Webb in the article was functionally not present) by his consistent, but self serving, conclusion.

Allen, surrounded by cameras and microphones after the event, hadn't cooled down. "What do you mean, 'make me so angry'?" he demanded angrily when asked why Fox's query had made him so angry. "To make whatever sort of comment that was, you just don't judge people by their ethnicity or their religion," Allen said, fuming that Fox would "drag my mother into this." The senator said his mother was the one who taught him about tolerance.

The power of description: "he demanded angrily" "fuming" etc. Media narratives, regardless of partisanship, must be fulfilled . . .