Journalism and American Democracy

While I have been an avid Obama supporter, I was disappointed in his performance as my twitter feed so constantly reaffirmed. While remaining more factual than Romney, his body language revealed his discomfort with the debate. My friends and I joked by pointing out his slow blinks most times Romney spoke – something we often do with people we are not too fond of.

Romney came in determined to make an impression. He did as he planned. While I considered a great deal of his demeanors lacking professionalism, I think they remain commendable being that it helped him win the debate. He was firm in his stances and arguments, and addressed the issues (semi) directly – no candidate really answers the questions directly, that’s just how it is. And by winning this debate, Romney has shown that he is still giving Obama run for his money. Both candidates are on the treadmill of elections, Romney is just on a higher speed determined to get ahead; Obama hasn’t been active since the pictures he took playing basketball. Better get back in shape, Obama, if you want to remain in this race.

But as I think about it: is this Obama’s plan? Does he plan to look weak in the first debate, so Biden doesn’t look so bad – because, let’s face it, he is not as eloquent in public speaking – and, consequently, he blows everyone out of the water in the last debate?

I guess we’ll have to see.

Big Bird 2012!!!

Just yesterday the country witnessed the 13th Presidential debate since the Kennedy-Nixon Debate in 1960. To the undecided voter, this is a chance to view if first hand how the nominees differ in positions. But to the decided voter this is merely a chance to bash on the opposed candidate. Is that really the case?

It seems that when the debates have come around, it is the decided voters who show more enthusiasm for the debates. It is like their “Jerry Springer”. But what about the undecided voters? If the debates are in place to help the undecided voters, why is there much less enthusiasm on their part? Because it is the decided voters that are more likely to actually view the debates, it seems useless to have them if their main purpose is to inform the undecided voter.

But is that really the case? The debates have become so engrained in the bureaucratic system, that their motive – while initially benevolent – has become a mere tool for candidates to show that if you speak with more assertion and poise, you can win the debate. Take yesterday’s debate. While Obama remained more factual, it was Romney’s assertive mannerism that helped him win the debate. Because of this I see no motive for the presidential debates. Not until the undecided voter shows more enthusiasm and actually pays attention to the debates, will the debates be remotely relevant.

But for the inebriation-seeking person, they can wholeheartedly say they watched the tetra-annual event along with the rest of politically-active population….while playing the “Debate Drinking Game.”

Do the debates matter?
Absolutely they should matter. They’re based upon the idea of the Presidential candidates standing up in front of the American people and talking frankly about their stances in different issues. A way for the American people to connect directly with their potential political leaders, in a sort of proto-social media platform. Now, should they matter as much as they do? Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is that people judge the debaters primarily on looks, not necessarily policy – how they say what they say becomes at least as important. Let’s take a look at an example, published today by the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/T659oC The author, Mr. Nakamura, talks largely about how Obama’s performance today contrasted with the “sluggish” performance from last night. This is also quickly becoming an arguing point for Obama’s campaign, saying that “Romney may have won on style points”, but that his own arguments were more substantial. However, that doesn’t seem to matter, as the consensus is that Romney was the winner (http://lat.ms/WpS0FK). So if we’re primarily judging based on how they look, should these debates hold significant sway over public opinion? I would argue no. Furthermore, they only include the Democratic and Republican candidates. While those two parties certainly dominate the American political scene, they are not the end-all be-all. The Libertarian party, for one, has grown in strength in recent years. While they probably won’t win any time soon, it’s not unrealistic to imagine them splitting the Republican vote in the near future. Given that, it would be nice to see another candidate or two included. Considering these two things, I really don’t think these debates should be as significant to the Presidential race as they are. But, will I tune in next Thursday for Round 2? Probably.

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…

While the debates may not have a huge impact on the overall outcome of the presidential election, I believe that they matter very much. The debates are the one event where the American public gets the watch their leader, and potential new leader, be challenged on their policies and beliefs and provide support for their political point of view. In very few contexts is it appropriate to challenge the President about his particular stance on an issue or his progress as our leader. I found it fascinating to watch the two candidates finally address their policies and ideas straight to the American public.
The other reason I believe the debates are important is that they force the candidates to solidly explain the reasoning behind their political positions, and more importantly, their plans for change. While we can read about these things online and brush up on the facts, there is a certain effect if “hearing it from the horses mouth” that resinates strongly with me. The debates allow people to judge the demeanor, attitude, viewpoint and ideology of each candidate. This is especially important for undecided voters. Even for me, a decided voter, I found it extremely valuable to have the facts surrounding the most pertinent issues surrounding the debate (namely: the economy, health care, education) laid out by the men who will be in charge.
Overall, the debates require the candidates to stand up and account for their decisions. I believe it is a very valuable part of the election process. There is more the the race than deciding on a winner– it is a learning process that offers Americans a great opportunity to get involved in politics and their government, get educated on the issues, get motivated to vote and fight for the changes that they want to see in their country. The debate is a fantastic outlet for people to utilize when it comes to accomplishing these goals.

Done in a twenty minute timed session for class, on an iPad.

Question: Do the debates matter?

The debates matter, though perhaps not to the degree that we have been led to believe. If nothing else, minimally, they have affected the ways parties perceive their potential candidates. The question of how well they’d do in a debate is one they hold important, and where there is such a belief the ponderous weight of factors follow. And when it comes down to it these factors, even minor ones, can have great effects. Not to mention that, as a spectacle, it too can draw crowds. And wayward American Studies students.

As to whether it sways people, gives them an eye into the candidate, it does to some degree. Public speaking can be taught but cannot really be faked. Debate skills again can be taught, but not necessarily faked. And while I might otherwise add discipline, such as that needed to stay within a time limit, is likewise, at last night’s debate we seemed to have none of that. The truth is that while most Americans get a good deal of their news by hearsay (“Obama Says Romney…”) via the news, or clips chosen by the same news, the debates are at least less filtered. While preparation is possible, I expect nothing said last night was ‘off the cuff’, it is still an indication of a personal skill. Not the most relevant one, perhaps, but a skill nonetheless.

But I cannot say that people take such debates seriously. Pollsters and politicos seem to think otherwise, and I can only muster a rational argument against them. Yet when the rational and empirical clash, the empirical usually wins. Still, one imagines it has at least had an effect on the candidates and how their parties choose them. No one wants to be Nixon, and if nothing else, our candidates seem to be getting handsomer, more photogenic. And if in no other way, that means they’re here to say, and be felt, in American elections.

Debates matter. I would argue that it is not the material debated so much as how the candidates appear while debating. Since the advent of television and debates during Kennedy/Nixon, these events have become moments of likeability and image. Those who watch the debates are focused on how comfortable or how commanding each candidate looks up on stage. What they are saying is important but it is the same talking points and facts that the public hears during the entire campaign. This is a moment of live national exposure for each candidate. Reactions on twitter for last night’s debate were overwhelmingly aimed towards how Romney or Obama were being perceived. I believe that the debates are essentially a performance, acing your lines and handling yourself in a way that can benefit your image as a knowledgable, confident leader. This is something the public reacts strongly to. The debates may not reveal anything important or novel within each candidate’s policy, ideology, or plans but it still remains an important force on the road to the White House. Candidates can really define themselves during these moments and at other times, they can see their unraveling. Should these debates matter for more intellectual reasons? Probably but in this visual media that focuses on the horse race and campaign strategy, image reigns. And the debates set a perfect stage for the public to see how each candidate conducts himself in a national event. It is not about what they are saying. It’s about how they are saying it.

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.

While the debate is always interesting to watch, this time around I had a much different experience because I chose to simultaneously look at my Twitter feed while watching the debate. Because I use my twitter account to follow mostly political news organizations and journalists, the feed blew up during the debate—everyone had a comment to share and Twitter is the perfect outlet on which to do so. In 140 characters or less people shared opinions, reactions, corrections to the many facts spewed off by candidates, and cracked humorous jokes. Using Twitter transformed my experience of watching the debate. While I still had my own personal reactions to what the candidates were saying, I was also reacting to the things other people were constantly posting on Twitter, and it became a little bit of a political overload.

I was most surprised at the speed in which people’s reactions were posted. Live tweeting was taken to a whole new level—quotes by Obama seemed to be shared before he even finished talking! Forget minute-by-minute journalism, this was news second by second. The benefit was that no part of the debate went uncovered. The downside: the information was hard to keep up with and quickly became overwhelming. Because there were such a multitude of organizations and individuals throwing in their two cents the commentary piled up and quickly became out of control.

However, following organizations such as politifact allowed me to look at the debate in a different light. Instead of taking the candidates words and facts at face value, I really learned how they were framing the issues and at times giving impressions of their positions on issues that didn’t necessarily reflect the truth.

Overall, making use of Twitter during the debate enhanced my understanding of what the politicians were talking about and inspired me to come up with my own opinions about the things they were saying.

My take? Romney clearly dominated, coming in from the beginning with strong answers and relentless support for his position. He did not back down but rather overwhelmed the incumbent president with his background knowledge, statistics, and zingers. Obama’s performance was disappointing; he failed to present his point of view with the confidence that Americans want to see in their leader.  However, the one area where he dominated was that he talked straight to the American people while Romney sometimes lost the audience with strings of facts and history that confused more than they helped. Obama was able to give clear answers and plans that outline success for the future. I would have liked to see him bring up more of the positive progress he has made in the last four years and touch on the issues that could have challenged Romney a little bit more. Unfortunately, he stumbled over his words and seemed to lack a clear train of thought. Romney’s performance showed America that he is still a viable candidate for the 2012 race.

One thing is for sure: the debate shook things up and made for a much more interesting race in the months ahead. Watching it with the iPad in front of me made for a much clearer understanding of the issues and positions of the candidates. I look forward to watching the next debates and seeing how they factor into the results of November’s presidential election.