Breaking with the discursive dynamics instituted by campaigns based on advertising, monologues and journalistic reports, this new modality offers more engagement in a limited time, as well as being easy to use by the viewer.
Therefore, it also serves to strengthen democracy by providing several tools that might have some bearing on future decisions from voters at the polls. In addition, being in real time, viewers can observe how the candidates behave and the spontaneity with which they address issues at the moment of confrontational exchange.
Nevertheless, despite their growing importance, little is known about the factors that explain why and how a country adopts a particular format for these debates. Nor has there been any meaningful research into how the context can determine the dynamics within the negotiating processes between political and media systems that lead up to the production of a debate.
This article attempts to fill that void and observe, through the evolution of the format, which system media or political has more influence in the process. We wish to focus on the historical development of debate formats as we believe that they express the tension and the balance of forces between the political and media systems.
We want to propose a model to deconstruct the staging, evolution and institutionalization of televised election debates in a specific political system. This situation entrails the danger of establishing models of analysis based in a format with two or three candidates and only one moderator, which might end up hiding important variations about their development in diverse environments Isotalus, Thank to this functional theory, Benoit and Henson , Benoit and Benoit-Bryan , Benoit, Henson and Sudbrock , and Glantz, Benoit and Airne demonstrated that a majority of debates had a similar format to the American model, whether with a journalist panel or with one or two moderators.
They also proved that regarding the degree of involvement from the journalists, there is a large variability, but most of the literature on this topic does not dwell deeply in their roles, even less with respect to the negotiations that explain the analyzed model. Regarding the format of the debates, McKinney and Carlin , pp. They also discovered that, while citizens are more focused in the policies being discussed, the journalists are more interested in the character of the candidates.
The American Model is very similar to Talk Show programs, characterized by the presence of a studio audience and, in their original format, a panel of journalists responsible for asking questions.
The French Model is distinct from the American Model in that, rather than being designed as a show , it is seen as an informative program where only the two candidates that have passed to the second round are allowed to discuss political issues in depth. It involves face-to-face exchanges between the candidates and is mediated by one or two moderators.
The introduction of primary elections in France in the last election has forced changes in this model. As for the German Model, at the present known as duel, it is a format that tries to avoid direct confrontation. The questions are asked by representative journalists from each of the two public channels that broadcast the program across the open network, and there are no time limits for candidates -for prime ministers or party leaders represented in parliament- to respond.
In addition, Acosta analyzed in his work the Argentinian debates and how they were developed by studying some elements of the format. This situation can also be seen in Chile, where in the model of the Nixon-Kennedy debate was adopted; a format that, over the years, has been adopted until the development of a new one for more information on the history of Chilean debates, Hilsenrad offers a historical review of anecdotes from all the debates organized in the country.
As it is possible to observe, the studies on the format of the debates, despite not being very encompassing ones, have allowed to visualize the facts that the norms under which these communicative instances are realized influence the way in which the encounter happens and how participants relate to one another. Televised debates constitute an important and distinct method for conveying messages in the different electoral campaigns Benoit, This normative capacity throughout the years has been affected by several factors.
Among them, this includes the type of format that is to say, the rules that determine times, order, types of interaction and participation and the negotiations between media and the political system, which predetermine the participation structure. In accordance with Anstead the debate model adopted by a country at the beginning may vary in time until they transform in a new model that responds to the contexts it is inserted in, being examples of this the US models.
According to Anstead and his adaptation of evolutionary theory to social science studies, the founding debate models, for example the US model, after being adopted and exposed to a new culture, evolves into a new model specific to the country where it is being used.
For this to happen, Anstead proposes that the debates must be exposed to specific environmental factors. This is why when the media system and the politic system bargain the rules of the debate, the agreements between both parts contribute to establish the format.
To understand then how the negotiations between both systems are produced and above all its dynamic nature, it is necessary to take into consideration that, in the case of political debates, they have taken place in a broader context that underwent a long process, defined as a mediatization of politics. The Mediatization of the Politics and its effect in the Speciation of the Debates. The first phase corresponds, first of all, to the concept of mediated politics.
Therefore, when politics has reached the first phase, the representations of reality in the media have impacted on how they are perceived. This forces politics to consider the media when formulating an opinion or reacting to public opinion.
In the second phase media has become more independent than governmental bodies or other political institutions and, in consequence, have come to impose their logic over the logic of politics. In the third phase, the independence of the media is further increased, turning even more autonomous and important than the political system and other social actors, who must adapt to the logic of the media. For example, in the transition from the third to the fourth phase, we observed that the media logic drives the production of debates, but they are only acceptable to the political logic only insofar as they are useful to the political actors with more power.
The common ancestral species is transplanted into other environments, where it may or may not establish a different evolutionary trajectory from that of the United States. Therefore, the Chilean case, instead of cases like France or Germany which started the process with their own model , has proven to be a better example of how speciation of debates operates; it might be a paradigmatic model given that the ancestral species in Chile is the same of the United States, but in both countries it has evolved speciated from the end of the 20th century in different directions.
Our thesis is that this species began to evolve and to adapt to the needs of each presidential electoral process in Chile, based on nation-specific conditions, causing the ancestral species to acquire new characteristics, thus initiating a process of progressive differentiation. These specific conditions were given by the evolution of the political system and the media system and the interaction of its logics, which were reflected in the negotiations to establish the rules and formats of each debate.
Once the format ceased to adapt further and a standard was set and maintained over time , a new species emerged, which, despite sharing features with the ancestral species, exhibits characteristics that are unique to the context where it was created. Previous studies about debates in Chile are scarce. In this sense, the Chilean case also represents a study challenge since, contrary to the cases analyzed by Anstead , there is a presidential system, whose party system has evolved from the configuration of two great coalitions to a clear multi-party one with several coalitions running for presidency.
As for television in Chile, it has evolved from a public service model with universities as central actors to one mainly commercial, where each network, including the state one, must be exclusively funded through advertising.
Nowadays, besides the state channel, there are also three open networks with a national reach, as well as two smaller channels in the regional level. This combination is attributed both to the structure of the Chilean media system, the neoliberal economic system, and the journalistic practices inherited from the dictatorship Coincidently, Santander established that between and , while certain media partially adapted the watchdog role, the dominant tendency is towards spectacularization or sensationalism.
Porath, Suzuki, Ramdohr and Portales point in the direction of a larger journalistic interest in aspects such as personalization and, above all, the strategic frame to cover political campaigns as a way of making politics more attractive to the audiences, at the same time that they present the Chilean case as one of mediatization of politics. We research and observe the evolution of 10 live presidential debates -of first rounds- organized and broadcasted together by the main channels of the country between and For this, we focus on four groups of variables.
First, the number of candidates that participated in each debate in relation to the total number of candidates who participated in the election. Second, the format, the rules and distribution of times to ask questions by journalists, the public, the moderator, and between candidates, and the participation of the audience, replies, closing arguments and themed blocks.
Third, if candidates had the right to answer when they were interpelated by another candidate or to interrupt each other. Finally, the type of questions allowed by the rules, if the inquiry was shared by all participants, semi-shared, or directed and personalized to each candidate, as well as whether the journalists had space for counter-arguments or to intervene while candidates were answering.
Specifically, the debates were studied through interpretative observation, because even if we worked with videos, transcriptions and press articles -due to the research being qualitative in nature- there will al-ways be interpretations from the people who analyze the research object Santos-Guerra, In addition, to better contextualize the format of the debate, we realized a revision of the press from the months when those debates were transmitted.
In , the first presidential elections since were held. This channel was the one with the highest ratings and the only channel independent from the military government. In addition, a third candidate was left off the roster a newcomer without a political base. For this debate, the same format with a panel of journalist that was used in the Nixon-Kennedy debates still employed in the United States at the time was decided on.
This is perhaps because journalism and the media in Chile were heavily influenced by the flow of information and models from the United States, particularly as the emergence of journalism studies in the country can be traced back to US schools, being affected at the outset by this professional model Protzel, , cited in Mellado, , p.
After lengthy discussions, it was agreed to form the panel with journalists from Canal The debate took place in the Canal 13 studios, with a live studio audience of over people. The questions were personalized each candidate was asked a different question and in case of wanting it, the candidate -who was not asked the question- had a minute to reply or comment on the answer given by the other candidate; the minute was followed by 30 seconds, in which the other candidate can answer with a counter-response.
At the end each candidate had time for their closing statements. The same model was used once again in the debate, but with some modifications being made to the original format.
Pence said Harris was undermining public confidence in a vaccine. He said the Obama administration failed during the swine flu pandemic and were lucky that it was less lethal than COVID Pence said Trump paid millions of dollars in property and payroll taxes. He said Trump had added back Pence said Biden wanted to ban fracking.
He said the United States reduced CO2 emissions through innovation rather than mandates. Pence said the United States lost , manufacturing jobs when Biden was vice president. He said Harris put her environmental agenda ahead of American workers by opposing the United States—Mexico—Canada trade agreement. He said he was pro-life. He said the Trump administration stood behind the separation of powers and a nine-seat Supreme Court.
He said Harris did nothing for criminal justice reform in California. He said Democrats had spent the past three years trying to overturn the results of the election. Pence said universal mail-in voting created the opportunity for fraud. It was divided into minute segments on the following six topics: [7]. Fox News' Chris Wallace , the debate's moderator, selected the topics. The University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana , was originally scheduled to host the event but withdrew on July 27, , in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
This section includes highlights for each presidential candidate with a focus on policy. Joe Biden discussed the Supreme Court vacancy, coronavirus pandemic, economy, race and violence, climate change, and election integrity. Biden said the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled after the election to give voters a say.
On healthcare, Biden said only people who qualified for Medicaid would be automatically enrolled in a public health option. He said Trump had no healthcare plan.
He said Trump was irresponsible with his handling of masks. He said schools and businesses were not supported to reopen safely. He said Trump would be the first president to leave office with fewer jobs than when he came in.
He said the Obama administration inherited the worst economy and fixed it, while Trump blew a booming economy. Biden said there was systemic injustice and called for increased funding for community policing. He said violent crime has increased under the Trump administration.
Biden discussed the military service of his son, Beau, and the drug addiction recovery of his other son, Hunter. Biden said his plan would create thousands of green jobs and lead to net-zero carbon emissions by He said the plan was not the Green New Deal.
Biden said Trump was afraid of mail-in voting. Donald Trump discussed the Supreme Court vacancy, coronavirus pandemic, economy, race and violence, climate change, and election integrity.
He said Republicans had the right to nominate her because they won the last election. He said Biden supported socialist medicine. Trump said he signed an executive order that would reduce prescription drug prices. He said a vaccine could be available sooner but politics was delaying it. He criticized strict shutdowns in Democratic-run states and said Biden would shut down the country.
Trump said he paid millions in federal income tax in and As a businessman, Trump said he did not want to pay taxes and used tax credits and depreciation. Trump said the Obama administration had the slowest economic recovery since , while he brought back manufacturing and , jobs. He said he had support from military leaders and law enforcement groups across the country. Trump said he ended racial sensitivity training because it was racist.
Trump said increases in crime across the country were a party issue. When asked if he would condemn white supremacist and militia groups, Trump said sure. He said the Proud Boys should stand back and stand by and that someone should do something about Antifa. Trump said he created the greatest economy and lowest unemployment numbers in history prior to COVID He said that he will have appointed federal judges. So in practice, it is all down to practical politics and as we have seen this year, ad hoc, often last-minute bargaining.
This section focuses on the formal election TV debates. There is much more detail in the book. You can also read the relevant section of the chapter on the TV debates for the General Election here.
During the election campaign, there were no television programmes where the main party leaders — May and Corbyn — engaged in direct debate with one another on the same platform. Calling a snap election meant there was less time for discussions between the broadcasters and the parties. Overall, the viewing figures for the election special programmes were significantly lower than the previous two campaigns.
And they did not remotely dominate the wider media agenda as they had in when they were still a novelty and several party leaders took part. They did not generate any particular policy concerns nor did they create exchanges that meaningfully shifted the dynamics of the campaign in the way that they arguably had done in With two exceptions.
Both Corbyn and May declined invitations to appear. Unlike in the public were less interested in the characters of the leaders and opinion polls were suggesting that they would have less of an impact on the campaign. Jump to: navigation , search. The requirements are satisfied if the candidate: a. Under the Constitution, the candidate who receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College, at least votes, is elected President regardless of the popular vote.
CPD will rely on the advice of a recognized expert or experts in public opinion polling in determining the polls it will rely upon.
The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.
Co-Chairs Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. Dorothy S. Kirk, Jr. Board of Directors John C. Jenkins Jim Lehrer Newton N. Minow Richard D. Buffett Foundation Sheldon S. Cohen, Esq. Philip Morris Companies Inc. File:Barack Obama presidential debate preparations.
Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Political scientists say no. What is an influencer? Categories : Pages with broken file links election influencers National influencers Organizations c 3. Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote?
How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open? Who Represents Me? Congress special elections Governors State executives State legislatures Ballot measures State judges Municipal officials School boards. How do I update a page? Election results. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login. Official website. First presidential debate. Vice presidential debate.
0コメント