: Are there really nine?…
Americans find televised debates politically useful. This assertion has been proven in studies by the Pew Research Center and various academic studies. The Pew figures are striking. In data collected prior to the 2000 election, 64% of respondents said they wanted to see more debates. And 85% of respondents said they wanted to see more coverage of candidates discussing their positions on issues. (re: “The Media I.” National Journal. vol. 32. Issue 30. 22 July 2000, p. 2412.)
One wonders why it is that print journalists refuse to give more attention to issue reporting during campaigns until one realizes that this is one of the effects of narrative bias (one of the structural biases of journalism). And you thought ideological bias was bad.
With that preface, I now want to briefly discuss my interpretation (”emotional reaction” would be more accurate) of last night’s debate among the Democratic candidates. I did not take notes. I have not read a news article about the debate (yet). I am giving my impressions based on my experience of a televised event. I do this because this is how the average American experienced this event.
Unlike the first big debate earlier this year in which I saw three potential presidents, last night I saw only one: John Kerry. This does not mean I think Kerry “won.” I do not think it is productive, or even very smart, to think in those terms. Instead, I want to think in terms of the intimate, emotional experience television creates. John Kerry looked and sounded like a president.
I’m in a charitable mood, so I’m going to say that Howard Dean almost looked and sounded like a president. I was generally pleased with his performance. But I was having a difficult time picturing him at the presidential podium delivering a speech or a press conference. The man has a problem holding his mouth in a pleasing way. And he’s gruff in a way that puts me off.
I thought Gephardt would rise to the rank of the presidential. At first, I was favorably impressed with his “miserable failure” rhetoric. But long after that horse died he kept beating it until he simply sounded shrill and absurd.
I enjoy listening to Carol Moseley Braun. And I enjoy her grandmotherly smile. I didn’t enjoy much that she had to say. And I can’t forget her problems as Senator. But she makes a pleasing impression: a well-spoken, even-tempered politician. Not a president, however.
Dennis Kucinich and Bob Graham? Yikes! Too oddball. I can hardly get past Graham’s narrow eyes and Kucinich’s Dumbo ears–and did he wash his hair this week?
John Edwards will be fine in the Kennedy mold as soon as he exits puberty.
And Joe Lieberman looked like the jowly leftover of a forgotten generation. His weak voice and lack of fire made him seem inconsequential compared to Edward’s youth, or Dean’s pointedness, or Gephardt’s craziness, or Kerry’s presidential bearing.
Okay, how do I, as a rhetoric scholar, justify all that I just wrote. Academically, I certainly do not justify it. What I wish to illustrate, however, is the kind of experience we have when we (normal people, not pundits or policy wonks) watch television. Yes, I did get the messages–such as they were. And, yes, I found some of the messages on the issues politically useful.
But television delivers other messages, too–messages that have to do with image and not necessarily substance. Television not only affects our experience of the debate (in fact, in creates the experience), it also affects the performance of the candidates who tailor their messages, and the color of their ties, for the visual-soundbite culture of the medium.
Do we really know more about these candidates today than we did yesterday? Do we know more about, say, how Dean’s health care plan differs from Gephardt’s, or how Kerry’s stand on the war differs from Lieberman’s.
The political utility citizens find in the debates comes from a curious combination of image and substance delivered as an intimate and emotional experience. In the absence of cogent reporting on the issues, this may be the best information we’ll get.
Links to Debate Coverage:
Good post, Doc - it was visceral, not intellectual, just like TV - I mean that in a good way - I really do!! TV cannot be intellectualized, only experienced (IMO-which is why I don’t watch - I have “experienced” TV since the 50’s - that’s enough!
I’m glad you liked it. I enjoyed writing it.
BTW, have you tuned in to Radio Rhetorica? We’ve been expecting e-mail from you.
Very informative post.
I did not see the debate.
One wonders if a (large?) certain segement of the electorate foregoes viewing such early debates as an acknowledgement that they are more style over substance? i.e., I’ll try to glean whatever (little) policy stands I can re: the current field of candidates via dry text, before I decide to spend my time winnowing based on “viewerability.”
That’s not to say one won’t ultimately base one’s decision on “viewerability” (or whatever term is appropriate for what you described — “visual judgement?”).
But I’d argue for a realization by voters that factual information regarding a candidate’s position supercedes “visual judgement,” and an acknowledgement that (certainly at this stage of the game) we see very little of it in the general media — so why play the “American Idol” aspect?
At least, I hope so.
Of course, the negative view might posit that we are simply allowing “someone else” (perhaps the media?) to winnow the field for us based on American Idol criteria.
An interesting conundrum.
In the sense that John Kerry is a hypocrite and liar, yes he was very Presidental wasn’t he
Oh, BTW cj, I love your blog, but get comments!
Hmmmmm…I had a long post in reply to cj as to why I thought people didn’t pay much attention to the early debates, as well as a comment about Radio Rhetorica, but it must have disappeared into the maw of cyberspace!
Re: the maw of cyberspace
Ooops. Well, do try again; we’d like to know what you’re thinking.
CJ… re: At least i hope so.
I think Americans use a wide range of information to make political decisions, including the superficial bits of image they see on TV. Those bits, however, are powerful persuaders. We saw a stark example of this early on: Generally, people who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate on the radio thought Nixon won; those who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won.