Does the Format Serve Its Purpose?
The question in this title requires us first to ask, "What is the Purpose?" The format, invented and controlled as it was by NBC, should be expected to serve NBC's purposes. Those purposes, typically, are those that best serve commercial media interests in selling news coverage and advertising time. Those purposes include: generating short sound bites, pressuring candidates in the hope they will make notable gaffes, and inducing conflict and controversy that can lead to televised fireworks. For those purposes, the fast-moving format of the South Carolina debate seemed very well designed. A little humor, a little controversy, some awkward pauses, and some incomplete answers gave Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman plenty to talk about for quite some time following the debate. And don't forget the expectations game. With systematic regularity, the questions demanded the candidates to demonstrate not just or even primarily their grasp of policy issues, but rather their ability to meet the expectations laid out for them before the debate by NBC commentator Tim Russert.
: South Crolina, 2008 Presidential Election, Democratic Primaries, Debate Formats
So, are these the purposes that voters want from debates? Maybe. Voters like to be entertained, and the conventional wisdom framing of the issues combined with a fast-paced and challenging debate is definitely entertaining to voters (at least those voters in the political equivalents of fantasy leagues). One could say that the ability to face tough questions and respond without major gaffes is one of the most important qualifications for a president in the media age, especially when crises unfold. Yet, to draw that conclusion is to reduce the debate process to a series of mere physical and performative challenges.
Perhaps a deeper purpose of debates ought to be to reveal a range of policy alternatives about which candidates for president have thought seriously and know much. For that purpose, this format was ill-suited. Although you wouldn't know that from the post-debate spins. The short, bullet-point, sound bite answers leave more than enough room for interpretation, and selective perception reigns. In a 60 or 30-second comment on health care, one cannot possibly hear enough to conclude that one plan is better than another. Yet the spinners for each candidate will spend days trying to convince anyone who will listen that the detail and clarity of their candidate's plan is far superior to the vague platitudes offered by the others.
Who is right? They all are, and they are all wrong at the same time. The idea that this debate format offers serious policy details to be explained and considered is overly optimistic at best. The other purposes of the debate may well be important, but the astute observer will approach the debate with a clear understanding of the differences among them.
