The decline of televised debates
“Increasingly, as politics becomes more partisan, those that watch debates are more often than not those that already have their minds made up and want to watch to root for their favoured candidate.”
In the past, I’ve been an advocate of TV political debates between candidates as I believe a face to face interaction on all the key issues of the day is exactly the kind of forum that can help voters see who they’re voting for in a clear view, behind all the smoke and mirrors. In the UK, this sentiment appears to have been shared by the public as the first debate in 2010 drew millions of viewers. Indeed, pollsters pointed to an effect of ‘Cleggmania’ in the polls once Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg managed to steal the spotlight from David Cameron and Gordon Brown. However, this hype didn’t contribute to an all too significant rise in the Liberal Democrat vote compared to the previous election despite the party having a good showing. This brings into question the effectiveness of TV debates, and what can be done to improve them so that those that have become disillusioned by them – such as myself – can once again see the appeal of viewing the candidates at the podium and feel more informed as a result of watching such debates.
Increasingly, as politics becomes more partisan, those that watch debates are more often than not those that already have their minds made up and want to watch to root for their favoured candidate.
Evidence of this is plastered all over social media, illustrating that those who are already interested in politics are increasingly the ones that tune in. This, to my mind, defeats their purpose which is to offer voters a chance to hear from their candidates directly and weigh up how they contrast with the opposition. Emerging populism, both in the UK and US, has fuelled more verbose candidates who use the debates as a way to attack opponents as opposed to make an honest case for their policies. It is no wonder then that viewing figures for debates have declined so readily in the UK and immediate polling often shows a public that are no more clued in after they’ve watched the debate than they were prior.
What does this come down to? Well, many factors but above all – bad moderators. Anyone that has watched a Question Time panel knows the phenomenon of the partial moderator. They interrupt one person on the panel specifically, almost as if they’re joining in on the debate they’re meant to merely be the mediator of. Just days ago, Chris Wallace appeared to clearly have a bias against the President on policy when he argued with him on climate change among other issues. Fact-checking is not something to be done during the debate but after, and that is the way it should be. Moderators should be strict on time and fight back strongly against interruptions that more often than not lead to cheap shots and insults that disillusion voters.
The wider the viewership, helped by good moderation and a planned format, the more likely TV debates can serve the useful purpose that they ought to serve in a modern democracy. Right now, however, they sway very little. Donald Trump was widely regarded to have lost all three Presidential debates in 2016 and still managed to clinch victory, which makes clear the point that traditional forms of campaigning are still the most effective. Until debates are more about policy and less about making quips, the quality of TV debates will remain in decline.
