Three Suggestions to Improve ITV's Terrible Leader Debate
I’m not really sure what to say about this unhinged excuse for a debate. I feel these events are crafted to create sensationalized media content, directly harming the electorate’s ability to critically think through the issues, deciding which candidate is best for their position.
Instead, debates structured in the U.S. Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) style - 2 v 2 with a journalist/moderator distance viewers from their own reasons for supporting a candidate and create a magnetized pull to support an ideology, one that might not benefit your situation at all. We regularly hear people say things like “I like how he/she handled themselves in that debate” as a reason for supporting someone.
But this is a bit too general. Election debates can be seen as valuable, but they have to change how they are structured in a very significant way. Here are some suggestions as to how to change around election debates using the ITV debate between Rishi Sunak and Kier Starmer as an example.
-
Eliminate the star journalist/moderator
Julie Etchingham was a huge problem in this debate. She would force the candidates to speak to one another - “say it to him” - then get frustrated when they wanted to have a back and forth - “gentlemen we have to put a stop in it there.”
Who is we? Etchingham represents exactly what is wrong with having TV journalists as moderators. She’s thinking about what makes a compelling news program, not a compelling debate. She’s thinking about the journalistic angle - how can I get these politicians to commit to a “solid answer?” Her approach with the questioning showed that her framework for the debate was one a journalist would have for an interview - and what an interview! Here you have two opposed, major party leaders at the same time! It could be very revealing indeed!
But this isn’t what makes a good debate. Well-formed debates do not need moderators; they need time limits. You just need someone to direct the traffic, so to speak. Consider the debate on Creationism that was held at Ken Hamm’s museum in Tennessee. There was no moderator peppering questions, but a journalist who kept the time and invited each speaker to take the floor. it wasn’t until after the debate was over that the journalist asked some follow-up questions based on what Bill Nye and Ken Hamm presented. The questions come after the substantive of the debate, after the speakers have tried to prove something. 2. Have one topic, and a motion for that topic that can be supported or defended.
Etchingham also followed the CPD model where there are just too many issues and too many questions. Good debate modeling focuses on one issue, such as immigration, taxation, national health, whatever you like, and forms a motion around it. “The best way to handle boat crossings is the deterrent suggested by the Conservatives.” That’s a motion. Now, obviously Sunak will defend that and Starmer will attack it. Both can question one another’s position, arguments, and evidence this way too, but primarily because they will have time to present research, evidence, and opinion that supports their position. In CPD debates like this ITV News debate, there’s no time whatsoever for the candidates to show what (little) research backs up their point of view.
Starmer and Sunak, as well as other party leaders or pretty much any MP ever understand what it means to have a debate on a proposal. Journalists do not. When the government puts forward a motion, questioning it, speaking in support of it, and speaking against it are all in order. Why does this not happen when media creation companies like ITV host a debate? Why alter the format so radically to something that Prime Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, and Opposition front benchers never do? This is like a job interview where they ask you to make mixed drinks to prove that you can manage a bar. It simply is too big of a disconnect. 3. The Audience Should Judge The Debate
There were some very sharp questions and interesting people in the audience for the ITV debate. But they were overshadowed by people speaking for them. They got to ask one question each - about 15 seconds long - and then hear Sunak, Starmer, and Etchingham discuss “What they really mean.” These three really shouldn’t be the last word on the “heart of the question” asked by a voter.
Instead, why not have a panel of 5 citizens, give or take, who all come from different points of view? In this debate we had questions from the homemaker trying to make ends meet on a fixed income, the poor woman who suffers from chronic illness and is frustrated with the NHS, the young student who is worried about his future finances, the young man who wants a strong government that can stand up for what is just and right overseas in Gaza, and finally the middle-aged man who is concerned about boat crossings and immigrants coming into the country. Sounds like a great panel to me.
At the end of the debate, each of these people could say who they thought won the debate and why. They wouldn’t have to talk long, and the moderator/journalist could help them flesh it out and add some of their own follow ups as well. After this ended, each candidate could give a closing statement that would be much improved: It would address some of the perceived gaps that appeared in the calls made by the panel.
Of course, with my earlier suggestion that the debates should have one topic and a motion, you’d want a panel that wasn’t diverse on issues they care about but on that one issue - for an immigration debate you want people of all kinds of diversity, including opinions on immigration. Same for taxation or finance (small business owner, a retiree, a student, etc).
These three suggestions are meant to make the debate more useful for the voting public. It’s limited, but the status quo model of debate is limited as well. The current model, based squarely on the CPD in the United States, only helps the parties thrive in ambiguity and the media creation companies like ITV generate a ton of valuable content they can monetize. What does this model do for the voters? What does it do to improve critical thought and evaluation? What does it do to improve the standard of political thought and analysis among the members of the public? The answer, sadly, is nothing. Debate’s function is to do all three and it does it well when it is structured properly.
Here is the full debate: https://www.youtube.com/live/heP8-evLKvA?si=axSoojhyQBCIBPZb