Lyles: The real lesson behind the presidential debates
By Dick Lyles
Reaction to the presidential and vice-presidential debates has been fascinating. Perceptions about their impact are scattered over a broad spectrum as are the polls measuring the immediate outcomes.
Dick Lyles
The most important debate was the first between Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. It also appears to have had the most impact in terms of changing perceptions and shifting the apparent momentum of the campaigns. Most people, including democratic pollsters, pundits and Mr. Obama himself, agree that Mr. Romney gained a significant advantage and Mr. Obama suffered a significant setback.
Although many people have speculated on the causes of this effect (from Al Gore’s high altitude theory to Mr. Obama’s preoccupation with more important matters), none have explained the real reason behind what is the largest measured gap in performance in presidential debate history. Yes, Mr. Romney was “on” during the debate and Mr. Obama had an off night, but there was much more to it than that. Let’s look at what really happened.
To put the analysis in proper context, it is first important to understand that prior to this debate public perceptions of Mr. Romney were shaped largely by a hostile national media and more than a $150 million of mostly false and misleading negative campaign ads. Very few people had ever had an opportunity to see and hear Mr. Romney in anything more than short, carefully selected sound bites that were often taken out of context.
Likewise, people’s perceptions of Mr. Obama were shaped by a media that Bernie Goldberg describes as having a “slobbering love affair” with the president. Very few people had ever had an opportunity to hear Mr. Obama without his Teleprompter or in anything other than carefully selected sound bites often chosen to make him look much better than he deserved.
The debates reset reality for many people in regards to the perceptions of both men. Although both had rehearsed and prepared, it was the first time we had an opportunity to directly observe them in enough detail, with enough time, without layers of filtering from the most biased media establishment in American history. We didn’t have to assess the validity of negative and misleading statements in campaign ads or try to somehow uncover the truth in what was being reported by reporters whose goal is to shape the news rather than simply report the facts and let circumstances speak for themselves.
The debates gave voters their first opportunity to make first-hand judgments based on personal observation rather than relying on a fourth estate that has completely abandoned its role.
In the future we should double the number of debates for both presidential and vice presidential candidates. The debates should start immediately after the nominating conventions and should continue throughout the campaign. Each debate should be more narrowly focused. This would allow different areas of each platform to be examined in greater detail. Candidate’s patterns of behavior and command of the issues could thus be assessed directly, in greater detail, over a broader range of issues.
For example, if the vice-presidential candidates had more than one debate, would Joe Biden’s horrible demonstration of disrespectful, adolescent giggling turn out to be a behavior pattern or was he simply following bad advice about how to divert attention from his administration’s poor performance? It would be nice to know.
It is now clear that media bias and negative ads create one perception and direct observation creates another. I propose more debates so we can draw our own conclusions directly.
Lyles, a Poway resident, is a business/management consultant and best-selling author. Reader comments are encouraged.
Related posts:
Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=29500
Posted by Staff
on Oct 17 2012. Filed under Columnists.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
I think it would be good to have more debates on narrow range subjects, but would limit the time for each to an hour or less. I thought I was in an echo chamber as time went bye last night. No matter the question each of them reverted to their main talking points.
I think the debate was close to a draw, but without the help from the moderator Obama may have lost.
'Very few people had ever had an opportunity to hear Mr. Obama without his Teleprompter or in anything other than carefully selected sound bites often chosen to make him look much better than he deserved.'
Dick, do you seriously believe that Romney gives speeches without a teleprompter or talking points?. When he does, you get disasterous result such as the 47% speech. Obama is not beyond reproach, but to call him out for using a teleprompter is the pot calling the kettle black.
You missed the point. Watch the speeches each gave at the Al Smith dinner earlier this week. Mr. Romney's was well-scripted, well-delivered and received a much better response from the audience. Mr. Obama's was not as well prepared, his delivery was awkward and the response more tepid. The contrast is startling. Then read the AP wire service story. According to them, the speeches were equally intertaining and engaging and the response to both was the same.
If you see the candidates yourself during these debates you'll see confidence and a much stronger presentation from Mr. Romney. Mr. Obama is losing his confidence and his effectiveness as a campaigner. The polls reflect these results. The articles written about the campaign by major national news media do not.
Because the polls are shifting in response to people seeing the candidates first hand I think we should have more, better focused debates in the future.
well i'm not sure i missed your point since your point was that pres. obama uses teleprompters which is somehow condemning. and i'm not sure a can agree with the above either. what you hear depends on where you stand. mr. romney comes across like finger nails on a chalk board to me. his delivery is often rushed and clipped and his expression is smug—to me. viva la differance i guess…
Ironic that the article is about media bias..hmm.. assume Dick Lyles is a Republican! Does he consider FOX news an unbiased news source ?
In order to read my column and comment here, you had to click on "opinion." It is my role to write opinion columns on the editorial page from a conservative perspective, just as Amy writes from a liberal perspective. This has never been a secret, but I'm glad you figured it out.
The bias we all observe that should concern us all is that which appears under the guise of news reporting. News should be factually reported and opinion should be labelled as such.
I think when Shepherd Smith reporst the news on Fox News he is reasonably unbiased. When BIll O'Reilly or Sean Hannity comment on the news during their news analysis shows they are both biased in favor of conservatives, although Hannity more so than O'Reilly.
Yes, Mr. Lyles, it is all a matter of perspective. Democrats and Republicans can look at the same debate, and, guess what! — Democrats will like President Obama's presentation and comments, and Republicans will like Governor Romney's. I watched the Al Smith dinner speeches and liked President Obama's speech much better. He is casual, his delivery with comedy is more natural, and I thought his remarks were funnier. Governor Romney has a stilted, scripted delivery. Do you think either wrote their own remarks? But then, I like President Obama, respect him, and have already voted for him. The lack of respect I have seen from Governor Romney for a sitting President, not only in words but the look on his face, far exceeds Vice-President Biden's with Paul Ryan during their debate. However, my Rancho Bernardo Republican Conservative friends no doubt agree with you. You speak to their perspective and Amy Roost speaks to mine and the many others who respect our President.