Some missing elements in the debate over the debates

By ALLAN BONNER | Published: Monday, 06/29/2015 12:00 am EDT

There are a few elements missing from the

current debate about political debates. The

discussion focuses on the so-called

consortium of broadcasters who set the

circumstances under which political debates

happened on TV for about 35 years. The

political parties and the consortium negotiate

on format, the set, who asks questions and

so on.

The current reluctance of the Prime Minister

to participate in consortium debates paints

him as uncooperative, the consortium as a

dark and sinister force, journalists as

guardians of democracy and free speech, and

the voter as out of the loop.

But heres some product labelling and a

reality check as you listen in on this

summers debates and discussion about

them:

1. The viewers that the consortium and its

traditional networks say they get for debates

are debatable. For decades, radio and TV

have been trying to get an accurate reading

on who is watching but have often measured

TV sets that are on but which no ones

watching. They also measure the program

that respondents think they should say they

watched, hear that their friends watched,

discussed with friends, or otherwise didnt

watch but say they did. They also report they

watched their favourite station, not the one

they actually watched. CBC Radio once did

research to find that listeners always tuned

into their favourite hostsClyde Gilmour

and Bob Kerrlong after these two icons

were dead.

2. There is something new happening in the

media landscape. Were not through the

transition and no one knows where were

going, but social media and hand-held

devices may change politics as did the

telegraph and railroad in the 19th century.

All media are trying to become other media

and use other platforms to get a second life.

This oddball patchwork of social media and

newspapers pretending to be TV stations

might be worth a try.

3. There is little in democratic theory that

compels voters to be informed or participate.

If people dont want to watch a debate, you

cant stop them. If they cant be bothered

entering a few key strokes on YouTube to

see their future PM, so be it.

4. In the olden days, it was said that radio

and TV provided a headline service, and

newspapers provided the details. The term

headline showed the electronic medias

reverence for print, and inferiority complex.

This analysis falls apart after you read USA

Today and then watch an endless

documentary on PBS, but well go with the

comparison for now.

5. Reporters have always bemoaned the

repetition during leaders tours with a

Gainsburger (reference to a pre-packaged

dog food) being fed to them every day in

roughly the same political stump speech.

Thoughtful reporters suggested covering the

issues, and then ate another Gainsburger.

6. So, in light of numbers 4 and 5 above,

perhaps TV could re-invent itself as a

medium for thoughtful analysis. TV can take

clips from the cobbled-together debates and

provide analysis, a panel discussion or

competing clips from the leaders from past

events.

But lets get political and see what tactics

should prevail. Here are some first principles

from debates, and some conflict:

1. Debates favour the challengers who are

elevated to the level of the sitting head of

government. Yet viewers have a tendency to

believe the head of government because,

after all, he or she would know.

2. Other than campaign literature, most

political information in campaigns is too

shortin newscasts, columns, and

advertisements. Debates are a nice, long-

form discussion of issues, and long-form is a

good way to see how candidates might react

to future, unforeseen events if elected.

3. Clips from regular network TV are not as

easy or legal to edit and make into political

ads. Clips from social media and newspaper

sites are more accessible. This second life or

bounce can be powerful.

4. Debates reinforce but dont so much

change perceptions. This includes the

personal qualities of the candidate, which

often trump the issues. Yet there is more

conversion of voters from one party to

another than at any other time during an

election, small as it may be.

5. Despite some celebrated examples, such

as President Gerald Ford saying Eastern

Europe is not dominated by communists,

John Turner saying I had no option on

patronage appointments, and Lloyd

Bentsens telling Dan Quayle Youre no

John Kennedy in a U.S. vice-presidential

debate, there are usually no knockouts.

Humour can almost be a knockout, as when

Ronald Reagan joked about his age with

Walter Mondale.

6. Debates provide little new information but

are one-stop shopping for voters who can

ingest all the issues and the leaders styles.

7. Theres something that academics call

knowledge instability by which viewers

forget what political learning they received

very quickly. Hence the repetition by ads

and other political communication.

8. Much good content in debates is often not

reported by mediahence political ads.

9. The news media reinforce interpretations

of what happened in the debatehence

political ads to circumvent medias

influence.

10. If you think political discourse is going

to hell in a hand basket, youre right. Studies

show more speaker turns in debates and

that means interruptions, shorter discussion

of issues and more slogans. But voters seem

more interested in issues than they were a

generation ago, so take heart.

As Winston Churchill said, the best

argument against democracy is a five-minute

conversation with the average voter. So

taking heart, debate format notwithstanding,

is what we need to do.

Allan Bonner (allanbonner.com) has worked

with two dozen Canadian premiers and

party leaders, shot political ads and

coached leaders for televised debates. He is

the author of several books on

communication and politics.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times