Question of the day
Tuesday, Apr 2, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Zorn…
It’s time to end the tradition of conducting made-for-TV debates in front of human props — people instructed to sit mute between opening and closing rounds of polite applause. Their only purpose is to provide a visual background that recalls the prebroadcast era when auditorium settings were the only places to take the measure of candidates.
Such audiences create security concerns, and when they’re well-behaved they add nothing to the event except when they’re called on to ask questions (another tradition that should end; more about that in a moment).
So kudos to WFLD-Ch. 32 for being the only station to use a closed studio setting, as it did for its March 26 Lightfoot-Preckwinkle debate. The energy in the room — a factor sometimes cited as a reason to bring in scores of citizen witnesses — was evidently just fine. […]
Moderating is hard. Ponce, Flannery and, earlier in the cycle, WTTW and WMAQ-Ch. 5’s Carol Marin were among those broadcasters who proved equal to the task of doing enough homework to not allow their debates to turn into adjacent news conferences.
But formatting ought to be easy. Next time, every station should throw out the old rules as well as the audience.
* The Question: Agree or disagree? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
web polls
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:45 pm:
Audience out. Format not sure. so voted no.
- Perrid - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:46 pm:
I disagree. I agree that there’s not much they add if they aren’t asking questions, though “security concerns” is a fairly strong characterization. But I think having ordinary people asking questions is a good thing. The moderators, who are hopefully and usually fairly knowledgeable about important issues, can ask questions as well and that’s fine, but I have no problem with a more town hall approach.
- Anonymous voter - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:49 pm:
I disagree. I often speak to groups with some being broadcast. I think I do a better job if I have an audience to let me look at people and make sure my message is getting across. For the candidates, having a well-behaved audience may help all debaters do a better job of communicating. A camera is a cold thing to converse with.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:50 pm:
Zorn may be the Trib’s in-house liberal, but in other respects he shoulders the same arrogance as the brand.
Why should audience members be denied the ability to pose questions? If you can watch it live, why rely on the camera angles and points of view chosen by the broadcast host?
Voted No.
- Huh? - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:51 pm:
Disagree. Audience ought to be allowed to provide feedback to the debate, ala the British Parliament. Make the debaters defend themselves against all comers.
That being said, the moderators have to take control of the event to allow the debaters a chance to speak.
- Terry Salad - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:52 pm:
Audience out. Their questions are often lame. But very important for moderators to do their work and ask diverse, relevant questions. Followup questions, too. Lay off the softballs and don’t let candidates off with just a rote nonanswer.
- Earnest - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:53 pm:
Agree. The format of the debate match the medium. A debate intended for television should be approached differently than a debate intended for a live audience. I’m not saying there shouldn’t tv coverage for live-audience debates, but they are different beasts.
- Unpopular - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:53 pm:
Why run the audience out? Politics ain’t bean bag. If you can’t handle a studio audience during a debate you are not worthy of holding office.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:55 pm:
God no. Those audiences are often the first and only time a voter will see the candidate in the flesh. It is important to look at how the candidate behaves in real life. Are they courteous and respectful to people around them? How do they react emotionally to tough questions? You get a much better sense of the person seeing them in real life than you do on TV. Plus, Zorn should realize his proposal is going to turn candidates into bigger TV robots, who can be on when the camera is on, but the rest of the time are completely weird. What is even the benefit of not having an audience? Zorn paternalistically thinks the people there don’t benefit from being there?
No to this, and no to everything that subtracts from real life human interaction between the candidates and voters. If you are a candidate with half a personality, you should be out there meeting people. This kind of proposal will just protect the candidates that are barely real people.
- Rutro - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
An audience that cant ask questions is distracting (wttw). If they can ask questions, good. How about stopping debates when the candidates refuse to answer questions.
- SSL - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 2:56 pm:
Voted yes. I would rather the debaters focus on answering the questions, not on playing to the audience to score cheap points. We can all watch and make up our own minds.
- Bogey Golfer - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:02 pm:
The point I think Mr. Zorn is trying to make is the TV studios are stacked with those from the candidates’ teams or from some special interest group, and toss out prepared questions for their candidate to answer. Agree with Terry Salad.
- Professor - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:02 pm:
A high school kid, I listened to the Kennedy-Nixon Chicago debate on the radio. I listened to the person, presented by the voice. Neither contestant was there to put on a show, but to speak to the issues. Let’s cut out the showmanship, I agreed. But the live audience adds to the show aspects, and therefore will increase the TV or radio audience, and therefore increase revenue for the network through advertising. So the reality is ‘we will continue putting on shows.’
- Hammer - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:04 pm:
As a person who has had to try to stack rooms for debates my response isn’t super helpful. I think that some institutions that are interested in deep policy based debates shouldn’t have them but should have the panel of experts. Sometimes I’d really like to understand proposed policies, or hear experts have time to talk about how things worked or didn’t work in similar circumstances and there isn’t always enough time for that when candidates are trying to get talking points off or get a soundbite for themselves or from their opponents.
I think that organizations that are concerned with how people treat each other, or treat marginalized people etc should have audiences. The ability to read a room is important and the ability to translate what you’re saying into plain english is as well.
Questions I think can come from any number of sources live or via live gathering from twitter, etc or from asking stakeholder groups to chime in.
That is a deeply unsatisfying answer, sorry dudes.
- Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:05 pm:
I would ask Zorn: should editorial board rooms be cleared of reporters and columnists when candidates debate and/or interviewed by its members?
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:14 pm:
Maybe I am wrong but, I doubt all the audience in the WTTW debates were backers of one of the candidates.
- Unlearned Hand - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:15 pm:
The audience provideslittle to the debate, often adds a distraction, and sometimes outright disruption
- Steve Rogers - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:24 pm:
Why can’t we do both? I think having structured debates with no audience is fine; but I also think there could be other debates, town-hall style, which is also fine. Why does it have to be either/or, when it can be both? Plus, we never would have met Illinois D-list celebrity Ken Bone if not for audience questions.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:31 pm:
This and tape with the understanding that responses will be fact-checked when the debate is shown or heard.
- West Town TB - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 3:54 pm:
Seems to me that being able to take questions from the audience is something that candidates should do. It’s an opportunity for people to communicate the issues that matter to them.
That said, Steve Rogers is right… why not both?
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:00 pm:
Voted no. I was at the Carol Marin moderated Lightfoot/Preckwinkle debate. They made it clear we were not allowed to applaud or otherwise show our feelings during the debate. Nobody did. No need to throw out the audience. It’s on the moderators to deal with this issue.
- NeverPoliticallyCorrect - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:06 pm:
An audience is just there to pretend that the they play a part in the exercise. They rarely do and all too often just cause disruptions.
- Father Ted - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:08 pm:
I wish I had enough control over all of the various things in my life to be able to be mindful about the types of things Zorn concerns himself with.
- Father Ted - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:11 pm:
Hit ‘Say It’ too soon- I voted disagree. I have no issue with live audiences and would expect it creates a more realistic atmosphere in which candidates are reminded that they’re speaking to real people and voters with issues. If a “dumb question” is asked, too bad- the question is important to a person who made an effort to be present at the debate and whose vote counts as much as anyone else’s.
- indianbadger1 - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:32 pm:
Unless they can ask questions, the presence of an audience is actually a hindrance.
- Skokie Man - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 4:44 pm:
I also disagree, though I share his contempt for debates/forums where the audience has no role and is forbidden from asking questions (ideal) or at least reacting audibly to answers (can spiral out of control).
- Fav Human - Tuesday, Apr 2, 19 @ 5:38 pm:
No to audience, no to moderator.
This is Illinois let’s do a modified Lincoln-Douglas style. Let the candidates ask questions of each other. That will Avoid the softballs