Secrets of a great leaders debate
Leaders debates can be great television. So what makes them such compelling viewing? finds out.
Election season produces some of New Zealand’s best television: the leaders debates. The writer of any soap opera will tell you that conflict is the key to compelling viewing, and what is a leaders debate but a glorified argument?
They have all the ingredients of a good television drama: we know the characters well, and most of us are pretty invested in the fortunes of at least one of them. And neither is about to back down and admit they are wrong.
If you want to see how compelling leaders debates can be, watch the second of the TrumpClinton debates from last year.
It was almost a piece of theatre, Trump channelling some kind of Shakespearean tyrant as he strutted around the stage while Clinton at times gripped her lectern like it was a life raft.
Our leaders probably don’t have the personalities to put on a similar spectacle, but that doesn’t mean it won’t be entertaining to watch them hash out the issues.
TVNZ is offering a true feast of election arguing with three Mike Hosking-hosted debates, including one involving the minor parties, and a ‘‘youth debate’’ hosted by Jack Tame. You know. For the kids.
Three’s offering slightly more modest fare, with Patrick Gower hosting a single leader’s debate.
Of course, a leaders debate’s purpose is to inform rather than entertain, but it could be argued that people will switch off if it’s boring.
So here’s a list of things I’d like to see our TV stations adopt to ensure our election debates are the spectacle they can be.
1. Get the leaders to stand and let them move around
Last election’s debates arranged the candidates in a number of ways.
We saw John Key and David Cunliffe sit down at a table to talk issues with Mike Hosking, and stand behind lecterns to face John Campbell.
TV3 took a particularly innovative approach in their Dinner with the Deciders debate, which saw all the minor party leaders sit down to dinner around a table.
But I’ve yet to see a more effective setup than that of the , where Trump and Clinton were given handheld microphones and allowed to prowl the stage.
It added visual interest - the eye is draw to a moving person more than a still one - but also it provided greater scope to read the candidates body language and the way they interacted with space.
Seeing Trump looming behind Clinton as she spoke was like something out of a horror movie.
2. Involve the audience
Remember Ken Bone? He was the red-sweatered gentleman who became an internet sensation after asking a question from the audience during the second Trump-Clinton campaign.
In the subsequent fallout people talked about his moustache, his glasses and that bright piece of knitwear. Then talk turned to his insurance fraud and preference for pornography featuring pregnant woman.
In all of this, his question was mostly forgotten, which is a shame because it was a pretty good one: Ken, a coal plant worker, wanted to know how the candidates would balance environmental responsibility with keeping jobs for those working in fossil fuel industries.
This supporting cast of minor characters in the audience can enliven and humanise the debates. I hope our debates make full use of them.
3. Let the leaders interrupt each other - but not too much
A bit of genuine friction between the leaders is really healthy for these debates.
If the leaders get a little riled, things will get messy. There will be interruptions.
Obviously the hosts need to keep them under control; we don’t want the contestant willing to be rudest getting rewarded with the most airtime.
But when the debates lose a little bit of their structure is often when the best moments emerge - Key’s infamous ‘‘show me the money’’ lines in the 2011 The Press leaders debate, for example.
4. Make the host an active participant
In theory, the host of a leaders debate should be a kind of impartial machine, who voices questions and tells the candidates to simmer down when things get heated.
In reality, though, the host is just as much a character in this drama as the politicians. Even if they do their utmost to keep themselves out of the argument, their personality will still influence it.
I’d like to see our TV networks embrace this fact. Let Paddy Gower be Paddy Gower, and (I can’t believe I’m writing this) let Mike Hosking be Mike Hosking. Let’s be honest for a second: leader’s debates are kind of a terrible way to get to grips with party policy.
There’s just too much complexity and too many ideas to get across in the time allowed.
Most of us watch the debates because we’re interested in the personalities, and we want to see which of the candidates best represents the qualities we want in a leader.
I’m not saying policy shouldn’t be an important part of debates; it absolutely should be front and centre. But I suspect most people are more interested in how the candidates argue than what their arguments are.
One of my favourite moments in the US debates came when an audience member asked Trump and Clinton to say something nice about each other. It wasn’t anything to do with policy, but it was the first time I felt like I had no idea what each was going to say.