Journalism and American Democracy

Many people may think that the debates no longer matter, especially with the proliferation of various other media sources that voters may refer to at any time, rather than tuning into the debates and listening to the, at times, painful discourse. However, I would argue that the debates are now more relevant than ever, as new forms of social media draw attention to them in unique ways. According to Beth Fouhy, a journalist for the Associated Press,last night’s debate drew 11.1 million comments on Twitter, making it the fourth most tweeted telecast of any kind. I do not know if the debates necessarily have huge power in swaying voters, but it is clear that they still have the power to garner the attention of large audiences. If any type of broadcast can incite that much buzz in a day and age when there are arguably more demands on our time and attention than ever before, I think that clearly indicates significance.

There are undeniably going to be voters who will vote along party lines regardless of what either candidate says in the debates or in any other media outlet. However, as more and more Americans are identifying as “independent” or “moderate,” a platform which requires both candidates to meet on an equal level is crucial. While maybe not deciding the votes of these middle-of-the-roaders, the event allows one to tune into issues regarding the election without the yammering of various political pundits – inevitably, that comes afterwards. Although Graber writes about the obvious issues in measuring media influence on viewers and readers,I would love to see even just self-assessments of the impact of the debates in the opinions of the viewers. Regardless, I think that viewers from all party affiliations continue to value this long-established tradition that allows for the presidential candidates to directly address us,the voters.

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.

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”