Debates are a venerable part of campaign coverage, and offer great opportunities for engaging viewers. Stations are experimenting with unusual locations and a variety of formats, such as including truth checks of campaign ads or position statements into the mix.

Debate Planning Documents

Our Resources section offers several documents on handling the campaigns, organizing a citizen audience, working on location, and more. Take a look!

  The Moderator Who Wasnt There

Wisconsin Public Television   : Madison, Wisconsin

air date » 5.Sep.02
clip run time » 6:32

contributed by Andy Burn the Podia Moore, Senior News Producer, Wisconsin Public Television

Wisconsin is in the midst of the first Tommy Thompson-less Gubernatorial election since 1982. With 15 years of Republican rule in the Badger State, its no surprise state Democrats ponied up three very presentable 2002 primary candidates. Last spring, I began imagining debate formats that could best reveal who these people are and what they stand for.

Since joining the news staff at Wisconsin Public Television in 1987, Ive produced over 50 candidate debates and political joint appearances for races ranging from everything from Congress to Governor to Supreme Court seats. As this years primary came into sight, I focused on a no-moderator debate approach. No what? No moderator, no 60-second responses, no rebuts, no opening/closing statements, etc.

Why keep journalists and moderators out of the debate?

While journalists (and voters) ask good questions, the number one complaint I get from viewers post-debates is the sense that the candidates dont bother answering those questions. Even if participants were dedicated to answering whats asked in a debate, everyone knows a candidate cant possibly outline a solution to, say, state corrections reform, in a minute. Theyre more than happy to be interrupted after 60 seconds of trying. Therefore, I believe moderated formats tend to encourage canned speeches rather than preclude them.

Ive grown weary of another traditional debate practice. Candidates love to accuse their debate opponent of terrible things, as long as the candidate can direct those accusations to a moderator. Would they be as quick to do that if no moderator was present?

What if the candidates were asked to talk among themselves on a given topic for an hour? This is the question I posed to the We the People/Wisconsin Civic Journalism Partnership, the media organization that sponsored our primary debate.

On Thursday, September 5 (Wisconsins primary is September 10), the three Democratic primary candidates for governor did just that. The event was broadcast live, prime time, state-wide from our Madison studio. The set space was very intimate. A studio audience of 75 sat in a circle around the candidates who sat breath-mint close to one another at a bistro-size table. It helped that we had a sturdy topic: what to do about the states projected $1.3 billion deficit. It also helped that we had three accomplished career public servants as candidates.

It would be hard to say where our moderator-less forum did not work. Its certainly a credit to the three individuals who participated, but its also a wonderful by-product, in my opinion, of how ready an approach like this is for the current political culture. The whole thing had the feel of a grand experiment. There was a terrific, and I mean big time, buzz leading up to it.

Fifty-three minutes of uninterrupted candidate conversation.

The discussion took off from the start. There was plenty of substance, some of which was turf never before treaded. A look through the state newspaper accounts of the event read like a compression of two weeks worth of campaign coverage.

There was humor. There was drama. The format humanized the candidates. They were full of specifics, but they actually sounded like real people. What does that translate to?

In my opinion that translated to 30% more viewers finding and actually staying with a political event on television folks who would have turned away in the first ten minutes with a traditional forum. It was really something to see.

A variety of state party (both Democratic and Republican) heavies told me that the inside word before the debate was that this approach was bizarre and stupid. So I took even more pleasure when they went on to tell me, nearly slackjawed, how meaningful it was.

I dont believe there was an actual winner, which I think says something mostly positive about the affair as well. Others of course, plenty of others, are having no trouble picking winners.

Initially, my executive producer was nearly as dubious about this format as the candidates themselves were. My boss got on-board quick. The candidates did, eventually. As much as the participants finally accepted the approach, Ive never seen candidates more pie-eyed and nervous ten minutes before a debate. This says something about how the candidates perceived the formats safeness. I thought one was going to have to be physically extracted from his dressing room by his campaign staff.

Can this work with other candidates...any old group of candidates? Depends. But after last weeks success, I can put this thing on the table, with confidence, for candidates who are far more raw wood than these were.

[ from the Wisconsin State Journal]

  Putting Their Money Where Their Mouth(s) Is(Are)

Twin Cities Public Television    : Minn./St. Paul, Minnesota

air date » 2002
clip run times » 6:54, 1:55

contributed by Bill Hanley, Executive Vice President of Content, Twin Cities Public Television (TPT)

Okay. So we like gimmicks at TPT. Whats it to ya?

Seriously though (this is public broadcasting, after all) we like this gimmick quite a lot. The idea is simple. In debates, candidates try to please everyone by supporting everything. At the very least they try to get away with vague answers. Tough questioning can clarify this situation only slightly.

This summer, TPT inaugurated Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, a regular feature designed to force candidates to make tough choices&and visibly weigh competing priorities. Minnesota currently has four legally qualified major parties (Democrats, Republicans, Greens and whatever Jesse is). Heres how we think this gimmick will work in this Gubernatorial match-up.

1. Prior to the first debate we asked each of Minnesotas Gubernatorial candidates to sit for a pre-debate interview. This was a requirement to participate in the debate.

2. Along with the normal background questions, each candidate was asked to sit at a table upon which were seven cards, each bearing the name of a state budget spending priority.

3. They were handed a pile of 100 single dollar bills and asked to treat this money as if it were the entire state budget for one year.

4. We watched and talked with them as they divided the 100 bills among the seven competing spending priorities.

5. Throughout the rest of the campaign we envision regularly referring to each candidates priority rankings and using them as a way of comparing the candidates.

6. These rankings are prominently posted on TPT.org.

7. Viewers are encouraged to do the rankings for themselves and then compare their choices with those of all of the candidates, thus giving these citizens a new and unique way of reevaluating their choice for Governor of Minnesota.

Before we started, the big question was How can you be sure every candidate will be willing to do this? We didnt know if they would, but it worked and they all agreed to play along with our money game. TPT has a long track record doing these sorts of things and Minnesota politicians know they pay a price for shying away. They also really like and trust our political reporter, Mary Lahammer. We will let them go through the exercise again to revise their judgments if they want to.

[watch RealVideo clips on TPTs web site]

Four candidates for governor play money game in debate

by Conrad deFiebre, Minnesota Star Tribune (1.Aug.02)

Asked to divvy up taxpayers money in their prospective state budgets, the endorsed candidates for governor from Minnesotas four major parties showed surprising similarities and a few marked differences Wednesday evening in their first televised debate. [read the full story]

  The Texas Debates: Politics of Language

KERA    Dallas, Texas

clip run time » 5:46

BPJ asked Rick Thompson of KERA to share some lessons learned from the Spanish-language gubernatorial debates held in March 2002. These debates were supported by a BPJ production grant.

Un Nuevo Día para La Política en Tejas y los Estados Unidos

Even before the historic day arrived, the first-ever Spanish debate for Texas governor nearly collapsed over the question of language. Ironically, the dispute involved Democratic candidate Dan Moraless last-minute decision to change the rules by summarizing answers in English. In the end, Moraless strategy apparently backfired, and may have contributed to Tony Sanchezs decisive victory. But more importantly, this groundbreaking debate received extraordinary publicity both in Texas and around the country and seemed to generate increased Latino interest in the election. In fact, the March 12 primary saw a record-breaking 34% turnout of Latino voters.

Background
The Spanish language debate was developed by KERA and its seven cross-media partners: Texas Monthly, Univision, The Dallas Morning News, WFAA, the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation, the Texas Association of Broadcasters and the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. Our original plan had been to just produce an hour-long English language gubernatorial debate with real-time Spanish translations. But when a similar Telemundo-sponsored debate in San Antonio fell through, The Texas Debates offered to produce an English and a Spanish debate. The result was a 3-hour debate night event. The first hour was an English language debate between the gubernatorial candidates. The second hour was a debate between the candidates for the U.S. Senate, and then in the third hour we brought the gubernatorial candidates back for the Spanish language debate.

Planning
Knowing there would be side-by-side comparisons of both debates, the first-ever Spanish forum mandated careful design drawing upon vital insight from co-sponsors Univision (television) and the Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation (radio).

The panel of Spanish-language journalists met twice with the producers to review debate questions. Ultimately, some questions were similar but many of the Spanish questions were sharpened to draw differences on personal, family and social issues because they were considered more relevant for the Spanish-speaking community.

Lessons Learned
Although it may be years before voters again encounter Spanish-fluent frontrunners, future debates would be well advised to include real-time translations. But, if you have the opportunity to produce a Spanish debate, here are a few helpful suggestions.

1. Partner with a Spanish-language medium that has similar journalistic practices.

2. Establish the language rules of the debate clearly. Is it strictly in Spanish or can it be bilingual?

3. Consider offering an English translation of the debate on the SAP channel.

4. Interview and audition translators to ensure they correctly use the right word choices and nuances.

5. On the technical side, assemble a bilingual production team. In addition to a Spanish-fluent producer, consider having a bilingual director or assistant director, floor manager and camera operators.