Lean Left

« Previous | Next »

Televised Debates: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies?
Posted by KTK

The invaluable site GovTrack notes this startling fact about last week’s Democratic debate:

[T]the different candidates are not getting the same amount of speaking time. Clinton spoke more than 3.5 times more words, and the same for speaking time, than Biden. For that matter, basically so did the moderator, who held the floor for more time than anyone but Clinton. It’s no wonder that Clinton is considered “the Democrat to beat” considering she’s in our face more.

If the numbers weren’t so vastly different between the candidates, we’d chalk it up to some random variation that happens from debate to debate. But, from the numbers, the speaking times are clearly planned. It’s so clear that I feel like maybe I missed something. Is it common knowledge that the debates are proportioning time out to the candidates based on their poll numbers (or something equivalent)? It’s not just that the front-runners are getting more time. The statistical correlation is ridiculously high (speaking time versus FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24: r=.96). That is, the debate organizers are basically using this formula to determine how much time each candidate should get:

Speaking Time = 8:26 minutes + 25 seconds * Latest Poll Number (%)

They note that no speaker’s time deviated from that formula by more than 140 seconds.

What’s really shocking is that correlation coefficient. You never see a correlation of 96%, even between real-world factors that are actually linked. I can’t quite figure out how they would do it (maybe give the moderator a running countdown of each speaker’s allotted remaining time and have him hustle them along so they don’t run over), but it’s hard not to suspect it was being done.

And that’s not right. There are constant complaints about the news media deciding which candidates should be taken seriously and which are not real contenders - but for them to make that decision secretly, and then literally silence the ones who don’t meet their standards (on the basis of popularity standings a year from the actual election!), is offensive. And of course it makes those early polls self-fulfilling prophecies: the ones who aren’t popular now not only don’t get much attention from the voters, they aren’t even allowed to make their case to the voters on an equal footing with the front-runners; less visibility means less influence, more visibility means more influence, and the media sets the candidates’ running positions in stone a year out, by acting as gatekeepers on who gets to present their message at all.

Of course there’s the problem of the fringe candidates and kooks, but debate organizers have by and large been responsible about that. The League of Women Voters used to set a 3% popularity cutoff for its debates, which doesn’t seem unreasonable, but most importantly their debates were scrupulously fair; this recent debate had participants polling at 1% or below, which is admirably inclusive, but it then condemned them to a stacked deck in the debate itself. I’m guessing they demanded the candidates keep their mouths shut about the unequal access as a prerequisite for being included. At any rate, it’s just another way to take influence out of the hands of the voters. It’s not like anybody lacks opportunities to hear what Clinton or Obama have to say; really empowering voters would mean helping them hear the options that are offered to them, not reifying poll results before the voters have even heard from the candidates.

November 6th, 2007 General, Politics, Media, News & Current Events | 4 comments