Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Despite how they are billed, the televised face-to-face meetings between presidential candidates are not debates. UH professors,
students rate
the debateBy Mary Adamski
Star-BulletinThat's the opinion of University of Hawaii speech department teachers and students who brought their perspective on communication skills to their viewing of the Al Gore vs. George W. Bush show yesterday.
The speech professionals listened for things left unsaid and watched the body language, observing what undergraduate student Joshua Hubbell described as the product of "lots of talented speech majors employed by the candidates."
Lecturer Norman Wong, who brought students from his Argumentation and Debate class to the George Hall gathering, said: "An effective debate is a clash. You state your differences and defend your position. In the first match, they were criticized for attacking, so it appears they backed away from that," said Wong, but the more civil they were, and the more vague about differences, the further the candidates strayed from true debate.
"One issue per debate" is the traditional format and Wong thinks the voters would benefit from a series of such confrontations.
Assistant professor Renee Klingle said: "The problem with not having a real debate is that you don't have someone saying, 'You didn't make your argument.' A good debater would be pointing out the other's faulty reasoning."
Wong said he'd like to see the candidates confronted with experts asking questions: "Have them ask specific questions, have someone really test them."
"How about questions from leaders of different nations?" Klingle suggested.
"I'd like to see them confronted with a scenario," said speech department Chairman Kelly Aune. "Dealing with an emergency situation would reveal their knowledge, their moral standing, their fast thinking ... and their weaknesses along those lines."
Aune said Bush benefitted from the less formal staging with candidates seated, compared to the first round when each stood behind a podium. "We hold people to a lower standard of communicative skills in an informal setting," said Aune, who jotted a compilation of uncompleted thoughts, malapropisms and grammatical lapses from both politicians.
Student Olivia Federico said: "Gore used a lot of powerless language, such as 'I may not be an expert but,' which brought down his credibility. Bush used powerful nonverbal language, like leaning back, showing he's confident and at ease."
Her classmate Hubbell saw their demeanor as sometimes calculated and deliberate. "Gore was criticized for being condescending so this was a gentle, 'you can trust me.' He leaned forward, nodding in agreement. Gore was retooled since the last debate. Bush was criticized for softness, so today there's this confidence. It's almost as if they switched roles," Hubbell said.
Assistant professor Amy Hubbard, who teaches verbal and non-verbal speech, watched for smiles, which aren't always the pleasantry they're intended to be.
"I found it disturbing when Bush was talking about the death penalty ... his smile gave a spiteful spin to what he said about there not being anything more serious that could be done to killers."
Klingle said the candidates were clearly aware of the camera on their "backstage behavior," a change from the first round when they were caught unaware.
"Bush got caught today not paying attention, and Jim Lehrer had to repeat himself. I want a leader who can listen when others speak," she said.
Gore cited unfavorable Texas statistics and situations several times, a device to discredit his opponent, which graduate student Mary Beth Callison said "had a negative effect after a while. I think most viewers recognize it -- references to Arkansas were used against Clinton."
The televised meetings are "using a debate form to make campaign speeches," said Wong.
Hubbard agreed, "It gives the pseudo-appearance of honor. Because we give it the title of debate, it looks more believable than a one-sided appearance."
Long after other viewers have moved onto other topics, the speech professionals will still be talking about the politicians' appearances. "Our professional email will be dissecting it and at future conferences, people will be presenting papers on it," Aune said.
And speech class students who didn't watch the "debate" are going to find themselves behind because it's going to be the topic in classes ahead.
