[editor's note, by Allan Louden] This article is from Brian McGee, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication at the College of Charleston. His research interests include rhetoric and race, and political communication. He edited Contemporary Argumentation and Debate Journal
The two South Carolina candidates for the U.S. Senate, Democratic challenger Bob Conley and incumbent Republican Lindsey Graham, met for a single debate on October 11, 2008. The incumbent's enormous financial and name-recognition advantages mean this debate is unlikely to change the election outcome, no matter what the performance of the two candidates. However, the format of this debate provided little opportunity to learn anything substantive about challenger or incumbent, and, as a result, the debate was hardly worth the trouble.
Here's a short summary of the format: This debate gave each candidate a one-minute opening statement and a one-minute closing statement. After the opening statements, two journalists took turns asking questions, with the candidates receiving 90 seconds to respond to each question, followed by optional 30-second rebuttals for the candidates. The questions frequently were multi-part, and the candidates were not always asked the same questions. The entire enterprise was completed in 55 minutes.
Of course, any experienced politician can manage the standard set of talking points in 90 seconds. However, this format essentially guaranteed superficiality. There was no plan for follow-up questions by the journalists, and the 30-second rebuttals provided only enough time to discern that the candidates disagreed on, for example, the likelihood of a successful military outcome in Afghanistan. The format allowed for displays of passion, sarcastic one-liners, and signs of experience in public speaking, but reasons were rarely stated for the positions the candidates summarized.
Alan Schroeder, author of published Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-Risk TV, an informed observer of presidential debates, often in theater where he has absorbed the political atmospherics of the last several Presidential Debates, has written a reasoned analysis on the Columbia University Press Blog, previewing what to expect in fall Commission of Presidential Debate events.
Professor Schroeder weaves his analysis around the missed opportunity for a July 4th debate between McCain and Obama and why the demands of presidential debates are likely to thwart real innovations in the fall. He hints that this years unconventional campaigns had the hope for unconventional debates, but don't hold your breadth.
Schroeder writes:
By traditional metrics, the McCain camp was probably accurate in its assumption of low viewership on the Fourth of July. But the unorthodox nature of this year's presidential campaign challenges that expectation. A holiday debate would undoubtedly have generated a high degree of media hype, drawing an audience unable to resist the lure of live political theater. . .
Unless Anderson Cooper or one of the candidates wedges them into the debate as a segue or follow up, we probably will not hear questions about the breaking news of questionable travel expenses using tax money to help Rudy conduct adulterous visits, news that broke just hours ago at Politico.
CNN can discuss little else in the hour leading up to the debate and their reporters say that's the main buzz they are discussing.
But the questions were submitted by citizens who knew none of this. In fact, most of the questions will also pre-date the tiff between Rudy and Romney about Romney's crime record as Massachusetts governor as well as questions about Romney's having ruled out inclusion of Muslims in his cabinet.
These are the kinds of questions journalist questioners would love to raise. But they also do not make for very good debate. What facts and arguments could be brought, really?
My guess is that tonight's debate will stick to broader themes of experience and policy, the kinds of questions citizens tend to favor. The format has a certain rigidity that does not lend itself to last minute improvisation.
If not, the CNN crew must be hard at work picking out some last minute YouTube questions that would serve as good springboards to the questions the media really wants answered.
To get ready for tonight's GOP CNN/YouTube presidential primary debate (8pm EST on CNN and streamed at CNN.com) I read the blogs and the papers so you wouldn't have to. If you want to check my work or read more, I bookmarked everything for you at del.icio.us.
To find the best of the web on tonight's debate just go to del.icio.us and insert the following (no quote marks, no commas) into the search box there: GOP youtube debatescoop. To narrow the search to articles focused on the questions add the word questions. To narrow to pieces previewing and predicting add the word preview.
After the debate you can do the same search but add winners/losers to find items discussing how the debate turned out.
But for now, you can simply click on "read more" to find my synthesis of the news and my own take aways from it. . . .
Tonight's GOP YouTube debate provides an exciting opportunity for members of the American public to ask the candidates questions to which they really want answers. Members of the public will not only have the opportunity to write questions for candidates, but they will also be able to ask their questions of the candidates in their own way via YouTube videos. This system creates a valuable opportunity to study the structure and delivery of the debate's questions and the impact those questions have on the debate itself.
The kinds of questions asked in presidential debates, as well as how those questions are asked, bear significant implications for how candidates answer the questions and how the voting public perceives the answers to those questions. Ben-Porath, in his piece, "Framing the Candidates" (Paper presented at the annual Conference of the International Communication Association, 2005), identifies three important characteristics of questions that can affect the candidate's response and how the voting public perceives that response.
While there's no denying that two candidates did engage in a vigorous tussle for a few moments in last Wednesday's Republican debate in New Hampshire, the event with that momentary bang nonetheless ended with a whimper as all the candidates struggled to answer the "what do you do?" hypothetical question concerning Iran that ended the evening. The final segment of the debate produced little direct clash (except between the questioner and some of the candidates), and the answers were riddled with inconsistencies and other ambiguities. Which is hardly the candidate's fault - hypothetical questions tend to have that sort of an effect.
The format of the FOX News debate last night, 90 minutes, eight candidates, 60 second answers, 30 second "rebuttals" has been criticized as not really a debate, more an extended forum.
Last night a debate broke out:
How refreshing. Does it not leave you (whatever side you are on) wanting more? Does it not reveal the principals and the abilities of these two better than the regular format does?
[editor's note, by Ross Smith]David Thomas's contribution below contains a rich set of questions for people interested in pursuing the study of what makes a good debate question. Our exercise earlier this week was meant to raise the question of questions and to serve as a demonstration project for educators. If more people pick up where we left off and take up David Thomas's challenges, numerous fruitful projects will be undertaken.
This is my second contribution.
Here I comment on the research project in which Youtube Debate questions are rank ordered by a set of criteria.
This is my first foray into Debate Scoop. I am a retired debate coach and rhetoric professor. My initial submission here consists of my perspective towards the Youtube debate format, and I make some suggestions for debate educators and college (and HS) debaters to consider when they watch the debates.
Update [2007-4-26 21:28:10 by Ross Smith]: Well, you can throw out some of what is below as inapplicable since the format was somewhat wild. MSNBC kept it something of a secret until the debate, perhaps because it was too complicated to explain. More tomorrow on the format as applied. Much of the advice below is still useful, but . . .
While "pundits" and "Democratic strategists" are repeating mantras about syle and substance, smart debate coaches (to the extent the candidates employ any) start with the format because the format dictates the best tactics to achieve the substantive and stylistic goals.
Read more below the fold for the unique features of the South Carolina debate's format and how that will influence tactics . . .
When a debate begins with the moderator's declaration that anarchy reigns, candidates had better be prepared with the appropriate strategy.
In last night's debate (video here) that featured a sitting governor against a free market businessman, it was the former who ruled. If anarchy permits the strong to dominate the weak, Jennifer Granholm is clearly stronger.
There are normative social and political rules, even though unstated, of course. Granholm took advantage of the lack of formal rules without violating the background norms listeners expect. The debate was not close. Follow me below the fold to read my explanation and to add your own comments.
Tim Russert is hosting a series of senatorial debates on Meet the Press this Fall. Our Debates Calendar gets you access to the details (for registered users).
The fact that the moderator, Tim Russert, and his format are constants across the debates makes this series an interesting study for analysts, campaign advisors, and interested observers.
Russert uses well prepared questions and does not "pitch softballs." For example, in the Virginia debate, he brought up an article written by Webb titled "Women Can't Fight." Russert then showed video tape of Commander Kathleen Murray, who declared:
There is no question that James Webb's attitudes and philosophy were major factors behind the unnecessary abuse and hazing received by me and my fellow women midshipmen. This article was brandished repeatedly by our male
upperclassmen. They quoted it and they used it as an excuse to mistreat
us.
When Webb replied in part that "it's been 27 years" since he wrote that, Russert turned to an other article from 1997. Russert also asked pointed questions of the other candidate, George Allen, who had written about Virginia
Military Institute, "[I]f it admitted women, it wouldn't be the VMI that we've know for 154 years."
It is difficult to think of a moderator/questioner in debates who asks more direct questions and matches Russert's willingness to ask pointed follow-up questions when candidates do not answer his questions.
Content analysis of the candidates' comments from first two Senate debates on Meet the Press shows that acclaims (self-praise) are more common than attacks (criticism of opponent) or defenses (responses to attacks). Pennsylvania: 38% acclaims, 36% attacks, 25% defenses. Virginia: 46% acclaims, 17% attacks, 37% defenses.
Russert's confrontational style likely encourages more defenses than would be found in most debates. A study of 15 US Senate debates from 1998-2004 (Benoit, Brazeal, & Airne, 2006) found that in those debates, 61% of statements were acclaims, 29% attacks, 10% defenses.
Content analysis can also examine the topics of debates. In these debates, candidates discussed policy (issues) more than character (image). In Pennsylvania, 76% policy and 24% character; in Virginia, 67% policy and 33% character.
The study of Senate debates 1998-2004 found a 70%/30% split, also favoring policy over character. Given the importance of and interest in the war in Iraq (and the war on terrorism), Russert asked all four candidates several questions on this topic.
William Benoit, Professor of Communication, University of Missouri
September 21 witness what may be the new generation of debates in the electronic age. Democratic candidate Chet Culver (Secretary of State) and Republican Jim Nussle(Congressman) had a live debate on television. AP in Des Moines, IA reported
Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Nussle and Democratic rival Chet Culver touted their commitment to health care Thursday night but disagreed on the cigarette tax and stem cell research.
Both candidates appeared live on an Iowa Public Television program --Culver from the network's studios, Nussle via satellite from Washington, where he is in Congress.
The candidates spoke independently, not directly engaging each other as AP recounted
September 15th Waukesha Wisconsin hosted a forum between Democratic incumbent Jim Doyle and Republican challenger Mark Green. The hour long event was held at the GE Healthcare Institute. (Video - C-SPAN)
We The People/Wisconsin, a joint project of various Wisconsin media outlets, sought to create a debate that featured inclusion of voters in a civil educational process. And they succeeded with a modified townhall format. Well done. (picture of debate)
The first of two debates in this format limited questions to taxes and the economy asked by an small circle of real voters. The set was intimate, well framed, featured dynamic camera work and flattered both candidates. Focusing the discussion on fewer issues and responding to in-the-flesh humans who hold actual jobs and send real checks for taxes, resulted in more depth than one is accustomed to in political debates. At a couple points the voters called out platitudes and received more full answers.
The snug format produced candidates who, even as they issued multiple attacks, remained civil.
