Journalism and American Democracy

The debates do not matter. They are, to use Daniel Boorstein’s term, a “pseudo event.” There is no new information presented during the debates. Rather, viewers simply watch a real-time drama of how well, or poorly, the two candidates are able to frame, shape, and highlight the plans they have for America, which they have been delivering speech after speech after speech about for the past six months.

Further rendering the debates both unnecessary, and unnecessarily dramatic, is social media and all of the various mobile devices that we used to stay connected. Worried about truth in advertising? Go to PolitiFact. Or Ad Hawk. Or SuperPacApp. All of the information and fact-checking is right there. And it can all be accessed via Twitter. But so of course, Twitter also offers us instantaneous reviews of the performance as well. Obama was stiff. Romney has a sense of humor. Bird Big just got fired. How does that help me become better informed about their political positions? Am I really to believe that after four years Obama does not have a plan? Should I be shocked that Romney operated with boardroom efficiency?

Beyond performance and personality, what do we really glean from the debates?
Go to their websites. Read their platforms. Cross-check their claims with the facts. Figure out what issues are most important to you and see where the candidates stand on the matter. Find a journalist you trust, and read her watchdog reports.

But, whatever you do, don’t go by what the candidates say in the debate…

It was clear in the first 5 minutes and it was clear in closing statements. Mitt Romney came to play ball. He came ready to impress, looking to ace a job interview. He was crisp, he was clear. Obama, on the other hand, seemed mentally out of shape, years removed from his last debate. 15 minutes in and the President’s body language was already suggesting “Oh crap, I never actually studied for this”. Romney leaned into the debate while President Obama sat back. Twitter noticed too. Tweet polling by major news outlets such as Washington Post, ABC News and New York Times revealed an overwhelming consensus. Romney was running away with it.
To be fair, the live fact-checking showed a different debate, where Romney was losing…by a landslide. But therein lies the problem. Mr. Romney was on stage throwing out numbers, avoiding his plan details, and wrongly accusing the President but all Obama could muster was his same talking points, lauding his own plans. It was weak, it was passive and it was uninspired.
The debate itself has been receiving mixed reviews. NBC anchor Robert Costa enjoyed the minimal presence of moderator of Jim Lehrer. Others, like myself, found it wonky. Romney looked like a bully, talking over Lehrer the entire time. And Obama began taking chips at Lehrer for his lack of moderation skills (“I had 5 seconds before you interrupted me”). Maybe it was Lehrer’s fault, maybe it was Romney being overconfident, either way it hurt the structure of the debate, allowing Romney much more air time and a repetitive cadence of stances. The one bright spot? The awkward mention by Romney on his plan to cut The PBS budget and his silly way to patch it up: “I love Big Bird”. Lies. Well we all know who Big Bird is voting for.
In the end I think Political Wire’s own Taegan Goddard summed the debate up correctly – “Obama missed a big chance tonight. While the fact-checkes may ultimately side with the President in the end, Romney did a better job”