How We Viewed the Debates

And we are done. Much will be written over the next few days about the winners and losers of the last Presidential debate so I wont add to the score-keeping. But one thing that is rarely mentioned is the extent to which our perception is shaped by the stage picture of the debates. Consider one element of the debates that we now take for granted that didnt even exist before 2000 -- the split-screen image of the candidates. No question, the side-by-side view that shows you a candidate and his or her opponents reaction simultaneously has changed debates markedly. So, in the 1980 Reagan-Carter debates or the 1988 Bush-Dukakis debates, every candidate could rely on being able to command the stage for the duration of their responses. But no longer. Split screens make reaction shots often more compelling than the speaker a chance to undermine, deny or recriminate silently. In this election, one might convincingly argue that its favored Hillary who has mastered a slower, impassive, more studied body language which looks more Presidential when placed next to Trump. In the second debate, she calmly read off her notes while Trump assailed her character, suggesting dismissal and a preoccupation with more important matters. Gore Vidal once commented that TV is a cool medium and those who lower the temperature do better (he cited it as a reason that Norman Mailer never did well on TV). In some ways, slower and calmer does seem to prevail at these large-scale events. Similarly, Trump was served poorly by his resting face with its furrowed brow which looked pinched and dyspeptic when he wasnt speaking (he did much better on the third, looking largely relaxed between answers). Of course, it is crucial to remember that all of this is devoid of content that is, it doesnt track necessarily with the truth or consequence whats being said but it does convey the power of the image in shaping our perception.

In 2003, James N. Druckman tested this theory in a paper for The Journal of Politics . He had 171 students with no prior knowledge of the 1960 race watch the iconic Kennedy-Nixon debates. The legend, of course, is that those who watched the debate on TV overwhelmingly believed Kennedy won and those who listened on the radio overwhelmingly believed Nixon won the debate. Kennedys patrician affect and posture proved advantageous even though Nixons answers had more substance. Furthermore, Kennedy directed his answers to the camera while Nixon divided his attention between the moderator and the audience, making him look fidgety. For his study, Druckman repeated the circumstances by having some watch the debate on TV while others listen to a recording. The findings were hardly surprising: TV viewers discounted a candidates positions on political issues in favor of the force of their personalities (listeners weighted them equally). More interestingly, TV audiences cared more about integrity than listeners, searching for clues about a candidates probity in the images.

We see the symbolic power of images when we consider the stage pictures of the three debates as well. The first and third debates were held on a proscenium stage with the candidates and moderator on a dais above the audience. The result was that the camera filmed the candidates from eye level or slightly below, making them appear larger and more powerful in the frame (its why mythic characters in movies are filmed from below). Hillary took better advantage of this because she had clearly worked on her carriage. She leaned back, resting her weight on her heels making her look poised and in charge. Trump loomed large as well but his constant interruptions and his flailing arms didnt demonstrate control nearly as well. The second debate was quite different. This time, it was a thrust stage with the dais sunken and the audience raised above the candidates. Hillary didnt appear as powerful because the cameras were filming her from a high angle and often in long shots and medium shots which made her appear dwarfed in the frame. Trump, by virtue of his physical stature looked commanding at first. But Hillary countervailed a great deal of this by crossing the stage to answer questions from the audience, often crowding his side of the floor and drawing closer to the camera.

We are all awash in a sea of symbols, Howard Gardner, the developmental psychologist wrote in his book The Unschooled Mind. Its a symphony of effects that adds up to our perception of reality, including who won and who lost the debates. As we make this most important of decisions on November 8th, let us take the time to make sure that we pull apart the signal from the noise, the impression from the import.