In 1960 the debate between Nixon and Kennedy was simulcast on radio and television, Americans had to choose how they consumed the debate and then decide which candidate came off the victor. The consensus held that television viewers favored Kennedy, while radio listeners leaned towards Nixon. Kennedy proved more adept and handsome enough to spread his campaign message to voters newly exposed to an audio-visual medium. Television became the primary battleground to reach the largest number of potential voters. The attention of voters shifts with time and technological advancements. The Internet, blogs, social media, and Citizens United have all done their part in changing the frontier of modern politics. The largest shift since 1960 has come from the fight for higher ratings by media companies hosting an ever increasing number of debates and town halls.
Distraction is in large supply today. Smartphones, laptops, tablets, and television all openly compete with each other for eyeballs and attention. More often than not, no true victor emerges and two screen viewing becomes the norm. The best chance for something resonating and sticking with someone is repeated and/or unique appearances in his or her social media stream. For candidates competing for the presidency, this status quo is unbreakable through conventional political means. To push their message forward and gain traction in the polls, candidates need to stand out. Many have chosen this election cycle to aim for spectacle and shock. The most likes, shares and follows come from the nastiest barrages or entertaining soundbites. It's hard to fault the candidates for playing to the house crowd. They are doing what they feel is necessary to convert attention into votes. The same cannot be said for the media companies who provide the brunt of the audio-visual content being repurposed on social media.
There was a time when media companies maintained a certain level of civility and respect toward men and women in public office. Journalists not only cared about job security and increasing viewership or circulation, but also about respecting decorum. Cynicism's growth in pop culture may be responsible for this erosion and disintegration of journalistic integrity. Media companies have leveraged this opportunity to act like unshackled genies, free to conjure any content to drive eyeballs and advertising revenue. In theory, more presidential debates would give more time to voice policy views and lead to a more informed populous voting at large. This holds only if the hosts of these debates feel compelled to be a part of the voting process, aiding in the process of getting voters to make the most informed decision. What we have seen this election cycle is that these companies are acting primarily (if not solely) to exploit and manipulate the candidates for their own ratings. It is in the best interest of a company holding a debate to make the stakes seem high and the race close. The lax enforcement of debate rules and lines of questioning by moderators can be seen as prodding candidates to come out slinging against each other or say something lurid. The heated moments will gain traction on social media, and hopefully better ratings and future ad buys on the network. The march for high ratings and viral social media content has poisoned the quality of the political conversation and skewed reality.
Voting With Incomplete Information
Informed voters are the only means in a democracy to make meaningful progress. We should try to ensure that candidates have reasonable and fair vetting in the public eye. It's easy to find an argument towards publicly sponsored debates that air simulcast across all network broadcasters and any other mediums who wish to participate. Questions could be vetted by journalists and experts in relevant fields to better yield an answer that would better help inform a voter about a candidate's position. The goal of debates and town halls should be to inform the voter and push the conversation forward on policy positions. Candidates shouldn't be coddled with pre-screened questions or gerrymandered audience members. Someone has to hold the line for civil political discourse. Ad-free debates simulcast across competing networks would be a good first step towards improving the political conversation.
Kayla Webley, "How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World", Time, September 23, 2010
SCOTUS blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/
Christopher Zara, "Broadcast And Cable TV Ratings Keep Declining", International Business Times, June 16, 2015