Though the presidential debates drew tremendous television ratings, some Boston University students and professors question their true significance.
In front of his history class of more than 40 students, professor Richard Deese asked who has watched the presidential debates. The majority of the class raised their arms. Deese’s unofficial polling is representative of Boston University’s attention to the presidential race.
In a survey of 100 randomly selected BU students and faculty members, 88 percent said they watched at least some of the presidential or vice presidential debates.
In his office with the New York Times homepage on his computer and American history books on his desk, Deese explained why he thinks viewers do not learn much from debates.
“The candidates approach the debates with so much rehearsal that it’s fair for a viewer to expect that they won’t learn anything new,” Deese said. “Spontaneity has receded over time because the cost of making a mistake is so high –– it will wind up on TV and the Internet.”
Though many students had already chosen a side going into the debates, each of them said they had different reasons for tuning in.
“Depending on what questions the moderator asked, I learned more about the candidates’ stances from themselves, rather than newspapers and journals –– which served to verify or disprove what the different news agencies report about each candidate’s platform,” College of Arts and Sciences sophomore Omeed Askari said.
CAS junior Shira Tober said the debates were notable because they showed how the candidates responded to being in the spotlight. Just by watching the candidates on the screen, Tober was able to draw conclusions about their abilities to speak and perform under pressure.
“When people watch debates, they are not watching to hear what the candidates have to say, they are watching to see how they can hold their own and interact with the other candidate,” Tober said. “During the townhall debate, McCain seemed to be a lot more uncomfortable when Obama was speaking, while Obama sat very poised and was always smiling when McCain talked. Overall, it seemed like he was more relaxed.”
Presentation skills instructor Jacki Rose said that body language has a large effect on the success of the candidates and shaping the American public opinion. She said audiences usually focus on vocal tone, inflection and the speaker’s emotion, rather than words.
Seventy-six percent of students and faculty polled said they noticed body language during the debates.
“Seven percent of communication is words, the rest is all body language,” Rose said. “If there’s pacing or stuttering going on, it looks as if they’re not totally confident because these are nervous habits. When they use body language that is not very confident, we will lose confidence in what they are saying because audiences will only have as much confidence in the presenter as they portray it.”
President of the BU Debate club Rocky Lotito agreed that Obama appeared more fluid and relaxed and did better than McCain when it came to appealing to undecided voters.
“For a presidential debate, you’re appealing to a much wider group, so if you start coming up with things that are too complicated, people are not going to understand it,” Lotito said. “That’s why when the presidential candidates come out with very economic platforms or very big health care platforms, a lot of analysts sort of scold them for not being more specific, but in reality, people don’t want them to be too specific, because the moment they stop understanding it, they sort of lose interest.”
A BU rhetoric professor in the College of General Studies, Lynn Hallstein, said that a major element of public speaking is being able to appeal to an audience without making your message seem over simplistic.
“One of the criticisms early on of Obama, since he is such a critical thinker, was that he was not being clear, direct and specific because he was trying to hold these complicated ideas out there in the public as he was making decisions about what his positions would be on policy,” Hallstein said.
“On one hand, I think he clearly has demonstrated that he’s very complex and a good thinker, but his dilemma has been to craft his message in ways that are more simple or understandable in a direct way.”
School of Management junior Mike Burke said he thought the debates were unimportant because neither of the candidates really addressed the issues that were brought up. Instead of gaining knowledge from the debates, Burke said that he thought the candidates went back and forth on the issues without reaching a conclusion.
“They try to make the other guy look bad rather than getting to the point,” Burke said. Both sides have very strong right wing and very strong left wing, but they want to get the most voters they can, so they don’t take a strong stance on any side.”
Alan Abramowitz, an expert on national politics, polling and elections and professor of political science at Emory University, said the most crucial part of debates is creating a message that appeals to the voters.
“The issues at hand are more important than anything the candidates say or do,” Abramowitz said. “I think the fact that the most successful candidates are often the best communicators; however, I think it’s most important that their message is one that resonates with the voters.”
An overwhelming 94 percent of students and faculty polled said the ability for the next president to communicate well was either extremely or very important.
Dissecting the Debates
Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Be the first to comment on this article!