Presidential debates are meant steered by the moderator in order to maintain structure and organization in the topics of discussion, but this debate was not a good example of this in action. The candidates tended to take advantage of the poor moderation and continually went over time and made interruptions, in order to make all the points they were planned to make. The preparation that goes into debating is visible in the overuse of "zingers" that the public can latch on to, but it felt like everything was forced and more like a speech than a debate.
This contradicts the "cool" tone of television, as both candidates did not seem particularly relaxed, but the increased viewer participation through social networks like twitter invited a forum-like format. Romney actually seemed more relaxed in the debate than Obama, and did well in manipulating his underdog status in order to seem like he came out on top. However, I was bothered by his need to get the last word in and the strange points he was making about the economy and healthcare which seemed to contradict his platform up until now. This flip-flopping probably threw off Obama from his fact-based and lecturing debate style, which is boring to many viewers and does not grab their attention like Romney's statements did. Most media coverage does not discuss the actual points made in the debate, but rather the composure of the candidates. Viewers are more likely to criticize a candidate for being flustered than for lying about an issue because they want to vote for a candidate who seems strong and capable, and whose debating points hit hard. Obama did not fill this requirement and thus disappointed even left wingers.
The expectations of viewers are usually inflated by the media, and this causes candidates to have to put in extra effort in order to outshine each other.
No comments:
Post a Comment