Colwell: These beliefs aren't up for debate
After being privileged to participate in many televised political debates as moderator or panelist, I have some firm beliefs on conducting debates.
They hold true for any upcoming presidential debates as well as for events at the state, congressional and local levels in which I was involved. Three of the most important beliefs are:
◦ Questions, whether asked by a panelist, a moderator or a representative of some voter group, should aim at getting or expanding views on important issues. Debate organizers should never pick questioners likely to aim zingers just to shake up a candidate or to focus attention on the questioner. Questions don’t have to be soft. They can be tough and still be fair. And candidates often come off best in answering tough questions.
◦ There should be no audience participation. The best way to prevent disruptive booing, cheering, applauding, groaning or laughing is to hold the debate in a TV studio with a small audience of immediate families and staff. A debate should be for the voters watching at home, not for zealots packing an auditorium. Lack of a partisan audience also keeps candidates from playing to the crowd instead of answering questions.
◦ There should be only two candidates, with rare exceptions, for a general election debate. For upcoming Trump vs. Biden debates, in terms of informing voters about a choice of worldwide importance, there is no reason to add someone weird like Bobby Kennedy Jr., who has no chance of winning any state. Adding a third candidate now to the presidential debates would like putting a third team on the field in the Super Bowl.
An inside view of debates as a questioner or moderator gives an appreciation of what candidates go through, how nervous some are awaiting the start an event that could determine their future. They shouldn’t have to worry about heckling or other distractions from an auditorium crowd or attacks from some additional “spoiler” candidate with nothing to lose.
It’s also possible to see how things not apparent to viewers at home can be important, even decisive.
Looking at the right camera is important.
In one debate for a statewide elective office, where I was a panelist, I could see there in the Indianapolis TV studio which candidate would be regarded by viewers around the state as the winner, even though neither flubbed or ducked a question.
One candidate looked at the live camera, talking to it as though it was a friend to whom he was giving his sincere answer. The other candidate looked at me and other questioners as he gave answers. Very polite. Very wrong. To the TV audience, he was looking away, as though avoiding eye contact with the public.
Guess what the polls showed after that debate.
The loser’s campaign staff, while likely spending a lot of time helping to prepare answers, spent no time in determining where to look when answering.
Since back at the time of the first televised presidential debate — Richard M. Nixon vs. John F. Kennedy — the importance of TV make-up has been apparent.
Nixon, after a grueling day of campaigning, declined make-up. He looked pale, drained and with a facial stubble. Kennedy, who prepared and rested at a hotel, had a facial touch-up from his team and looked great.
After that famous debate, polls showed that TV viewers overwhelmingly picked Kennedy as the winner, while a survey of voters who listened on radio, not seeing the candidates, thought Nixon had won or at least was even.
Who watches debates? You never know. After I moderated a Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between Republican Sen. Dick Lugar and Democratic challenger David Johnson, televised by WNIT in 2000, Lugar received a call from President Bill Clinton, who watched in the White House on C-SPAN. Clinton told Lugar he had done very well. He didn’t evaluate the moderator, fortunately.
Jack Colwell is a columnist for The Tribune. Write to him in care of The Tribune or by email at jcolwell@comcast.net.
This article originally appeared on South Bend Tribune: These tips aren't up for debate
