Analysis
Three lessons TV should take from the debates

By Kay McFadden
Seattle Times TV critic

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

For two-and-a-half weeks, the presidential and vice-presidential debates have dominated TV news, tumbling through the cycle of pre-face-off speculation, post-contest analysis and late-night mockery. But did the media get it right?

It's debatable.

The single point at which networks and cable-news channels could make their greatest impact was in the half-hour after each debate. That's when total audience numbers peaked.

With 18 days left until the Nov. 2 vote, TV should take three key lessons forward into the crucial period that remains: on fact-checking, spin and diversity.

1. Just the facts, please

Sen. John Kerry was wrong: President Bush met with black congressional leaders during his presidency. Bush was wrong: He did say on at least one occasion that he wasn't that worried about Osama bin Laden.

These are two of the corrections that emerged after Wednesday's final debate. And while such issues may not sway a vote, they illustrate a task fundamental to the news and perhaps never more so than in 2004: fact-checking.

Better technology, a Web-savvy electorate and a sharply contested election in which the candidates and their ad campaigns have exchanged specific accusations have thrust verification to the forefront.

Yet even in this age of Internet self-empowerment, voters want more from the news.

Diana Carlin is a communications professor at the University of Kansas who serves on the Advisory Board for the Commission on Presidential Debates.
 
"When people see a debate and things didn't ring true or there wasn't clarification, then they'll seek answers," said Carlin, who is conducting her fourth presidential-election study of voters and the media. "We've really seen an increased effort this year by individuals to find things out for themselves."

That said, "People still ... want the media to ask questions about the campaign-trail statements, the contradictions, the inaccuracies."

Some organizations performed this task well. Others subsumed it in a babble of opinion and interviews, or deemed it too stale to repeat in subsequent days.

And still others thought it didn't matter.

Marty Ryan is executive producer of political programs for Fox News Channel, which had the highest cable-news ratings for the debates.

"There's no clear-cut answer on fact-checking," he said. "If it is a huge, egregious mistake of fact, if it's something totally out there — not whether a figure is $92 or $93 million, but something huge — we'd make a point of [noting] a bigger gaffe."

But, Ryan said on Wednesday, "We haven't had any of that yet."

Studies by media-watchdog groups show that newspapers historically have stepped in to fill television's fact-checking breach.

This year, however, viewers have found an additional source: political entertainment programs such as "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," "Real Time with Bill Maher" and the fake-news segment of "Saturday Night Live."

Night after night and week after week, these shows have succinctly and humorously highlighted inconsistencies and false statements from the candidates. TV journalism abandons this responsibility at the risk of sacrificing its own relevancy.

2. Stifle the spin

Many viewers probably sympathized with CNN anchor Aaron Brown's sarcasm the night of the second presidential debate.

"That's like, what, another shocker out of the spin room tonight?" Brown said when confronted with a not-so-revelatory comment from the place where campaign spokespeople wait to be interviewed.

It seems fair to question the value to voters. Hearing Bush adviser Karen Hughes or Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe argue that their nominees performed well is, after all, hardly news.

Nonetheless, ABC was the only TV outlet that resisted using spin-room occupants during its half-hour of follow-up coverage.

"The truth is, we have really good reporters who work for us and we cover politics very well," said Paul Mason, senior vice president of ABC News. "We're proud of what we do, and in the 30 minutes after the debate, we feel like the people we have who cover politics can give us the best sense of the meeting."

Others find value in the spin room.

Al Ortiz, executive producer of CBS News' debate coverage, said interviewing people like Hughes and McAuliffe is meant to help voters understand strategy.

"Certainly, you expect them to say the predictable defense of their guy and shortcomings of the opponent," Ortiz said. "But what it enables you to do a little is to ask questions. You get a good sense of what their strategy is and what the spin will be going forward."

But David Bohrman, vice president of news and production at CNN, allowed that the spin room has its faults.

For the first debate, CNN conducted spin-room interviews before and after. Then the "before" segment was dropped, Bohrman said, because "it was useless."

Journalism critics seem inclined to agree. William Benoit, an expert on presidential campaigns and media at the University of Missouri, said television news is ignoring its mandate.

"I don't think the news should be giving free airtime to what in effect are campaign commercials, even if it's for both sides," he said.

3. Increase diversity

Although it has often been remarked upon, little has been done to broaden the gender and racial diversity of prominent anchors and correspondents at the networks and news channels.

That applies to the debates as well. Although Gwen Ifill of PBS, who is black and female, moderated the vice-presidential debate, the other moderators as well as the overwhelming majority of staffers analyzing the debate were middle-aged, white and male.

There is not enough research to support the notion that a female correspondent might interpret a candidate's behavior — say, Bush's aggressiveness during the second debate or Kerry's occasionally unctuous manner — differently than would a male peer.

In 1996, however, the Poynter Institute conducted a pre-debate symposium attended by the University of Kansas' Carlin, who also studies gender communications issues.

"We had an interesting discussion in which we noted that males tend to look for the knockout punch, the big gaffe, the fatal blow, all these sports analogies," she said.

"Men are far more likely to look for the game-winning strategy, while females are looking more at context — not who won or lost, but how did people relate to this behavior?"

The networks and cable-news channels are dotted with women, and some have weighed in on post-debate coverage, including CNN's Candy Crowley, ABC's Linda Douglas and NBC's Andrea Mitchell, part of MSNBC's pundit panel.

Some news outlets have supplemented lack of diversity by inviting outside analysts. Wednesday night, for example, ABC added NPR radio host Tavis Smiley, who is African American.

Nevertheless, said ABC's Mason, "I think we're not doing a good-enough job.

"The truth is that as we approached coverage of the final debate and how we wanted to report it, especially because it was about domestic issues, we needed to be more representative," he said. "On the one hand, I don't want to apologize for our fine staff; on the other, there are plenty of points of view that may not be represented."

Going forward

With the great focal point of the debates now behind, audiences will return to their usual scattershot viewing patterns. This requires television news to again be proactive in coming days.

Carlin has some pointers that serve viewers and journalists.

"In our discussion groups after the debate, we never ask who won or lost," she said. "Voters should be watching coverage and asking not who's doing what in the polls, but what did you learn? Did you get what you wanted? Were issues clarified for you?"

Benoit agrees. "What TV reporters should be doing is a comparison of the candidates' stands on the issues so voters see what the choices are — not highlighting the attack ad or the mistake because they think conflict attracts viewers."

Challenges are different for cable-news channels than for networks. CNN and Fox have a 24-hour void to fill, versus the half-hour nightly news segment on ABC, CBS and NBC.

Still, the same focal points seem to be of interest.

"It's hard to concentrate attention with a 24-hour spread, but I think the fact-checking is going to be more important," CNN's Bohrman said. "Because in the last weeks, the charges fly."

Ortiz, of CBS, also puts fact-checking high on the agenda.

"These two campaigns are very quick to play fast and loose with the facts and accusations involving their opponents," he said. "We have a team assigned and will be zeroing in on their statements — very, very carefully."

Kay McFadden: 206-382-8888 or kmcfadden@seattletimes.com.