<
https://theconversation.com/rishi-sunak-and-keir-starmers-election-debate-an-audience-asking-for-a-way-out-of-hopelessness-and-getting-nothing-in-response-231707>
"Two questions are commonly asked after televised election debates have taken
place. The first is “who won?” This is the favourite question of journalists,
pollsters and spin doctors. It is rooted in a conception of politics as battle,
all the more exciting when there are metaphorical blood stains left on the TV
studio wall.
“Who won” evaluations focus on knockout blows, smart, pithy, memorable
one-liners, gaffes and flash-poll verdicts. Behind the question is an
assumption that a one-hour televised exchange of views might rewrite the
electoral odds. Excitable party activists run around the press room during and
immediately after the debate claiming that their leader stole the show. In
truth, most studies of televised leaders’ debates around the world have
reported that they rarely change viewers’ settled preferences.
A second question concerns the democratic value of the debates. Did viewers
become better informed about the political choices before them? This question
relates to how successfully the key issues were set out and addressed in the
debate and whether the principles and policies separating the parties – as well
as the qualities and defects of would-be future national leaders – were made
apparent during the course of broadcast.
The second question relates to the effects of the debate upon civic awareness
and behaviour. During and after watching, are audience members galvanised to
share their opinions with others, whether in their immediate circles or online
networks, and are they subsequently motivated to take a further part in the
election, including voting?"
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
