Spare us such political gong shows in future

As the sole televised leaders’ debate began between the Sask Party’s Brad Wall and NDP Leader Cam Broten, the moderator set the plan in motion.

“Let’s go over the ground rules. They’re simple. Each leader has 45 seconds to answer a question. The journalists on the panel may follow up if necessary,” he said.

“And after that, there will be a two-minute open debate on each topic where the leaders will talk over each other, incessantly interrupt and make the debate unintelligible.” That last part wasn’t said, but it is what happened with a vengeance.

Disappointing and embarrassing, the debate could better have been called the Scrappy McBickerson Hour.

Both leaders chose to talk over one another and stubbornly stick on message. For interminable periods of time, it was like hearing two separate, disjointed and noisy speeches overlaid on one another.

It was so bad as to be unlistenable, prompting some viewers to hit the mute button and radio listeners to power off until the incoherence passed.

While the leaders deserve some blame, most of it rests with the media sponsors of this debacle: CBC, CTV and Global, who failed to set up an appropriate format.

In real debates — where smart people set up enforceable rules — the audience might encounter a brief speaking overlap between the debaters, but nothing like this gong show.

Without appropriate rules, it’s understandable how a debate like this can go off the rails.

The performers in a political debate — and they are performers on a stage — are keyed up, playing high stakes. One unfortunate turn of phrase, one slip of the tongue or one flustered or angry sideways glance can end a career.

As a result, the leaders, bristling with nervous energy, are fuelled by the same adrenalin that triggers the fight or flight impulse in all of us.

They have also been relentlessly coached on their strategies.

The less experienced Broten has to land some punches, which isn’t easy against Canada’s most popular premier.

To do it, he has to move inside and aggressively jab — no big roundhouse punches will land.

Wall has to hold his own, preferably sparring from a distance, never looking as if he’s even being hit by the rookie challenger.

A few basic rules also come into play — not real rules of debate, but precepts in the world of image, impression and perception.

When someone is interrupted or badgered and the moderator won’t intervene, the best advice is to keep talking, pretend the other person isn’t there and don’t stop the flow.

As the aggressive verbal play intensifies, a no-win situation arises. If the protagonist stands back and politely waits out the opponent, he is seen as weak and cowed. If he keeps talking, it may be seen as rude and childish, but that can later be spun as decisive, resolute and on message.

No one reined in Broten and Wall during their first so-called open debate of two minutes. After that, the debate was anything but.

I felt most sorry for the moderator, Costa Maragos, a retired anchorman who is genial, gracious and tolerant.

Moderators need to be given the rules and the latitude to be fearless, show no favour and be redoubtable enough to sternly raise a hand and say, “OK, gentlemen, stop. Mr. X, please finish, then a comment from you Mr. Y.”

A moderator has to know how to let the ebb and flow of a debate work and how to carry the whole thing off for the audience.

Overall, as Broten’s persistence turned aggressive, his speaking pattern began to sound like sniping. Wall repelled most of the barbs and never lost his cool. Beyond the two contrasts, there was little to take away.

In the absence of a gotcha moment or knockout punch, political debates generally confirm impressions already held by voters.

Besides swaying a small number of undecideds, they tend to solidify already stated support.

To no one’s surprise, 56 per cent of viewers who responded to a Mainstreet exit poll gave the win to Wall, while 32 per cent scored Broten on top.

The losers were the audience who sat through this.