I was really frustrated last night while watching the debates.

I was doing layout in the Observer office while it was on, so while I saw the whole thing, it was more background noise than my primary focus. However, I did try to pay attention as much as possible, and the pieces that I picked up were kind of frustrating. I’m not going to pretend to have an in-depth understanding of all that was debated last night, but what stood out to me the most was that the candidates were often indirect and extremely vague in their responses. Rather than giving any concrete information about what their own plans were, they sought every opportunity to knock their opponent’s plans.

Debates matter only to the extent that the audience (in this case, the whole country) has not yet decided their stance. I doubt that many people who had already had preconceived notions about who they were voting for changed their minds last night. The purpose of the debates are to persuade those who are undecided. So long as there are undecided voters who actually care about voting, debates matter. They might not provide the most information at the end of the night, but they certainly have an impact on those who have not yet made up their minds.

Debates also create watchdog journalism, and journalism in general. It was incredible how many stories were breaking AS the debate was going on. Twitter exploded with politics. The commentary surrounding the debates are equally as important because this commentary will also serve to persuade undecided voters. This raises the question of how biased the commentary can and should be. It goes back to wondering what kind of journalism the public needs. It is clear that the public needs journalism in order to digest the debates, but it is important for those reporting to separate fact from skewing the reporting to be in the best interest of the reporters.

So, overall, do debates matter? Yes. But not to the extent that they may be made out to matter.