Live audiences make spectacle of presidential debates

By Amin Aalipour | 5:45 p.m. Jan. 28, 2016


When John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon took the stage for the first televised debate in American history, few expected the course of the presidency to be altered forever. But by the time Kennedy was inaugurated, no one could deny the monumental role his calm and cool debate appearance played in his election.

More than 50 years after that Sept. 26, 1960, debate, a candidate’s debate presence continues to radically influence voting outcomes. Look no further than the seesawing GOP polls released around each of the 2015 candidate debates.

But unlike the 1960 debates, which were held in a small television studio, modern debates are a live spectacle with audiences that openly laugh, cheer and jeer.

While entertaining, it’s time to usher out the live audiences of televised debates. To not do so would threaten the underpinnings of our deliberative democracy.

The effects of live audience reactions on viewer opinion are well-documented. A 2015 report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center described the effect of audience laughter on viewer perception of Ronald Reagan after his 1984 debate zinger regarding Walter Mondale:

“I want you to know that also I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Study participants shown the original clip rated Reagan’s favorability significantly higher than those shown the same clip with laughter and applause removed.

The results are unsurprising, considering laugh tracks have been an effective staple of American sitcoms since the 1950s. But while sharing a laugh while watching “Seinfeld” seems innocuous, the barrage of applause and cheers at political debates make a dangerous mockery of our democracy.

In effect, a handful of attendees can alter the course of elections by changing the perception of viewers at home, regardless of what candidates actually say.

This modern mobocracy encroaches on the most basic principle of our political system: the assumption that individuals can consider many reasoned views and independently reach a decision. Even worse, live audiences are often made up of campaign donors, which are more biased than and poorly representative of the average American voter.

Real-time feedback also makes candidates more likely to pander to live audiences with quips and one-liners, which detract from substantive issues of policy.

Recall Donald Trump’s comment during the Jan. 14 debate regarding why he had brought into question Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility.

“Hey look, he never had a chance. Now, he’s doing better.

He’s got probably a 4 or 5 percent chance.”

Or consider the exchange between Lincoln Chafee and Hillary Clinton from the Oct. 13 debate regarding Clinton’s alleged breach of email security.

Chafee: “I think we need somebody with the best and ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.”

Moderator: “Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?”

Clinton: “No.”

Both Trump’s jab and Clinton’s one-word response earned them raucous laughter, all while denying the viewer a thoughtful response. The exchanges read much differently in text, leaving us to imagine how they would have panned out without a studio audience.

This sound-bite politicking, enabled by live audiences, has likely contributed to decreased presidential debate viewership over the years. Viewership among American voters fell from almost 60 percent in 1960 to 25 percent in 2012. Considering debate viewership has the potential to be a cornerstone of informed political engagement, these numbers are cause for concern.

This decline in viewership has particularly affected young voters like myself, who on the whole represent an already politically disinterested group.

With live audiences allowing little discussion of substantive issues and generating social media headlines like “Top 10 Zingers from Tonight’s Debate,” there is minimal incentive for young, technologically savvy viewers to watch an entire debate. Indeed, only 75 percent of debate viewers ages 18-34 watch most or all of a debate compared to 89 percent of viewers ages 35-49.

In spite of it all, live debate audiences do have their merits. Deftly engaging an audience is a key trait of effective leaders, and can energize both candidates and voters.

But a televised debate is one of the few chances to witness how candidates directly engage each other on issues of policy. And if the debates of 1960 taught us nothing else, it’s that debates can still be political game changers even if held in an empty TV studio.

So let’s leave the cheering and applause for the campaign rallies. Give voters an unadulterated chance to listen, reflect, and decide. Because that, after all, is what our democracy is all about.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...ction-debates/