In response to the previous unorthodox presidential debate, the CPD has decided candidates who speak out of turn will be muted in the final presidential debate. Being so, the rules remain mostly the same, mainly utilizing the muting feature for a candidate who was not given the floor. After each candidate’s 2 minute reply with the other candidate's microphone muted, they will be allowed to continue the debate as normal during the following 15 minutes of debating. Furthermore, the moderator of Thursday’s debate, Kristen Welker, will not have control of the candidates’ microphones, which will be specifically granted to the production crew.
What specifically is the hope of muting candidates during this debate? The commission states that they believed the first debate had “fallen short,” and that they wanted to better provide viewers with the opportunity to educate themselves with the views of either candidate. Washington Post backed up the idea that the debate had indeed fallen short of providing viewers ample information of the candidates’ beliefs, as a CNN poll they cited found that only 17% of viewers thought that the debate was informative.
Will it work? Some view that, although it will help encourage an informative debate, muting microphones will lead to the next debate being very similar to the previous one. Although interruptions during the 2 minute candidate introductions were a large issue with the last debate, another large portion of un-informative debate was during the 15 minute segment, which will not undergo any muting during the next debate. This means that a lot of arguments which were subjectively less informative than policy discussion will not necessarily be avoided through the new procedure. That being said, the new procedure will promote some policy discussion because the 2 minutes given to each candidate will be less argument based and more built to display the foundation of the candidates’ beliefs.
There are those who oppose this change, including President Trump. Although agreeing to the new terms of the next debate, Trump has directly opposed debates with the possibility of muting one’s microphone. This was specifically addressed when he said “...and then they cut you off whenever you want” while discussing his negativity towards a participating in a virtual debate. Trump further stated that it is completely unacceptable for “an unnamed person” to have control over microphone access. That being said, the production crew managing microphone access is regulated to only mute candidates as a means of limiting interruptions during each of their 2-minute talking periods, thus aiming to avoid any possible bias and disproportionate treatment during the debate (as described by the New York Times).
As shown by the overwhelming majority of people who feel the last unconventional debate was not informative, there is an obvious problem that the current debate format has when trying to create an informative environment for its viewers. Regulated microphone muting aims to allow viewers to get more informational content while avoiding purposefully or inadvertently creating an unfair debate environment. Although not the most extreme solution to make the debate majorly informative, it takes steps necessary to provide an experience for American voters that should better prepare them to make a more educated vote within the next few weeks.
9 comments:
I think this change in the debates layout will be very beneficial so that we can have a real discussion instead of people being talked over the entire debate. I hope that they have a little wiggle room so that candidates can respond if their opponent is saying something that is not truthful. In general, I think this change to the debate will be useful (especially for one party at least).
I like this change, and am curious to see if it will work as well as I hope it will. However, I find it sad that Trump and his campaign manager have taken to attacking the CPD, as they claim that this new rule of muting microphones "from the biased commission [is] their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate" (Stephien, Trump's campaign manager). The idea that this rule advantages one party over the other is ridiculous, since both parties get the same amount of speaking time, AND they will (hopefully) stay more on-track and have an informative and substantial debate. I also like that the CPD, clearly not a "biased commission," has eliminated any way for there to be bias by only allowing the production crew, not the moderator, to mute the candidates mics.
The fact that the CPD has determined it is necessary to literally mute the candidates during the next Presidential debate is a little disturbing to me. I think it's kind of upsetting that the debates have gotten so out of hand, that the commission is forced to employ this restriction. It's just weird to be that we can't trust two 75 year old men who are both extremely influential representatives of this nation to respect each other and the moderator for a 90 minute debate.
I wonder how much of an effect muting the mics will actually have. Knowing these two candidates, I would not be surprised if the muted mics only escalated the candidates to literally yell at each other. I definitely expect that they will blame a poor performance on the production team for not unmuting them as they should or something similar.
I am interested in seeing how effective these changes will be this evening because on one hand I think we will get more information out of the 2 minute periods, but on the other hand I can see the candidates raising their voices to interrupt without the microphone. No matter how today’s debate will turn out, though, it is important to recognize that the debates are mostly “infotainment” and citizens need to do their own political research in order to become informed voters.
Clearly, we can see that this decision to mute the candidates worked. Both candidates respected the time limits more, as they were afraid of being cut off. Interestingly, there was only one moment during the debate where the muting actually affected what one of the candidates were saying — one of Trump’s last words in his sentence was cut off (and of course he made a face). This debate was miles better than the first, although the first debate is kind of a low bar to compare anything to. There was a lot more policy discussion and the differences between the two candidates were laid out very clearly. In my opinion, I believe this was so effective that the CPD should have implemented this at the Vice Presidential debate as well. When I initially heard this, I had my doubts, since the candidates could still yell, I’m glad that they both respected the rules. It seems to me that this debate really wasn’t about winning any new voters, it was just about emphasizing the important policies on both sides. Although there wasn’t a lot of actual debate, this new format of muting mics allowed the candidates to get their points across.
Similar to Arnav, I agree that muting the candidates’ mics proved useful, as both Biden and Trump acted more respectfully and more productive discussion of policies followed. Additionally, one thing I found interesting were the debate tactics Trump used, which as post-debate analysis on NBC News pointed out, were similar to those he had used against Hillary Clinton in 2016, portraying Biden as the incumbent, while also purposefully avoiding the topics of healthcare, Covid-19, etc.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/chuck-trump-tried-to-make-the-biden-the-incumbent-in-debate-94451781578
It's disappointing that this is was necessary in the first place. In the end, however, I think that the decision to mute their mics was the right one. In addition to not allowing them to talk out of turn, the fact that the debate commission decided to take this step sends a strong message to the candidates. While many, including myself, saw the first debate as a failure, I was happy to see that the second one seemed to go more smoothly. I think the muting definitely worked as intended, and the candidates seemed like they had gotten the message that a repeat of the first debate would not be acceptable. These presidential debates are supposed to benefit the public, and while the second one still left much to be desired, it was a significant improvement from the first.
I agree with many of the previous comments and support muting the candidates' mics for a more productive and respectful political discussion. The interruptions during the first debates have caused many disputes and caught the public's attention. With the mic muting situation, each candidate will be less argument based and more built to display the foundation of the candidates’ beliefs which is the main focus of the discussion. Rather than for the people to talk about how "wild" the debates are, stopping the arguments and disputes with mic-muting would allow the people to focus on the content.
I think muting microphones is actually a great idea especially since the past few times the snide comments have gotten out of hand. Besides the silence and not demeaning the opposing side every few seconds, I think muting the microphones may actually make each respective side more receptive to the information being brought up. My thought process of these debates right now is just 75% of the time making harsh comments with no basis, and 25% of the time giving real information that can help formulate voter opinions. By muting the microphone, I believe there would be a much more civilized debate that doesn't make both candidates seem like a 13-year-old bully.
Post a Comment