TV debates had their moments but didn’t help the undecided
TELEVISION debates can be compared to those opinion polls which are often quite helpful at election time – but problematic when it comes to a referendum.
We must also add these referendum problems are compounded when the issue is as difficult and divisive as abortion. The big surveys have in recent years delivered a clear advance idea of election outcomes – but the surveyors have yet to nail referendum results in advance.
Similarly, television debates have on occasion crystallised the big general issues. But the two big television debates on the abortion referendum at best offered limited help to the middle ground, those people who care and are struggling to decide what to do.
The first one, on RTÉ last week and chaired by the formidable Claire Byrne, got out of hand at times, and turned into a bitter contortion of those ‘Up for the Match’ specials.
On the plus side the debate attracted and held a large viewership, surely a big part of any television programme’s role, and it might even be cited as the moment when the issue became a talking point among ordinary citizens.
But the big problem was the whooping and hollering from the audience made up of people who hold strong views – for and against – on this difficult topic.
Let’s recall that on two
Half of the nation didn’t turn up in two out three votes on abortion
of the three occasions we have voted on the issue of abortion, specifically in 1983 and 2002, half the nation did not show at the polls. The debate l did not do much to help the undecided and conflicted voters.
The second debate was a more sedate affair, a headto-head between Health Minister and Yes advocate Simon Harris, and Sinn Féin dissident and No advocate Peadar Tóibín, due to a row over terms and conditions.
It was rather sedate but probably more informative in simpler terms via contributions from experts in the audience. It was definitely much better that the audience did not engage in the raucous behaviour of last week’s debate. But Tuesday’s experience, anchored by Miriam O’Callaghan, brings us to another bugbear about such political debates – the rows over ground rules, which frequently spill into the public domain.
Suffice to say that the rules are more usually set in stone and difficult to alter or even cause to be adapted.
These noise-off rows do offer an opportunity to generate some other spin-off publicity.
In real terms, though, any potential gains are a very poor substitute for getting an opportunity to put your case live on prime time television.
All of that brings us back to where we came into this topic. Televised political debates are replete with pitfalls – but likely to be with us for some time to come.