Jan
30
Written by:
Andy Hogue
1/30/2010 4:08 PM
DALLAS -- Broadcasting a gubernatorial debate on television in the age of the Internet can do alot to raise curiosity of candidacies to those not well-informed on state politics -- even if the remarks often make for better cannon fodder than brain food.
I had planned on driving to Dallas to cover some DFW-area House races for LSR and was pleased to be given a pass to "The Belo Debates," which featured the Republican candidates for Governor of Texas. So I left a day or so early to attend, though I'll admit that my attendance was mostly due to my own sense of curiosity.
This year it was Gov. Rick Perry aside GOP rivals U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Wharton County Republican organizer Debra Medina. I never did see the three candidates together on stage ... or anywhere. And my view was nearly as good as anyone else's.
After showing my invitation e-mail to a security guard at the gate of the Belo Building in downtown Dallas, and going through a very careful set of instructions (for security purposes) and a friendly escort through the winding hallways of the A.H. Belo Corporation's headquarters, I was taken to a warehouse area behind the studio.
Unlike "The Texas Debates" hosted by KERA-TV at the University of North Texas weeks ago, there was no audience for this one. We reporters and columnists reported/blogged/recorded/tweeted from covered tables in the warehouse area, while watching the debates on a few widescreen TVs (commercial and all).
Belo provided refreshments for the dozens of press members present, which was thoughtful. But considering that only one candidate came to the "spin room" afterward to answer our questions (Medina -- Perry has never participated in post-debate interviews and Hutchison had to think about it before declining) we may as well have stayed home on our Friday evening and filed there.
I didn't get a glimpse of the three candidates on stage together. And I don't think those watching from home got a very good look at the three candidates, either. Below are some thoughts I jotted down while outside the studio.
- While at one point in history a debate was a chance for candidates to lay out their campaign promises and plans of action for voters in a concise format, today voters can simply view a candidate's stand on their Web sites to get the same info. Two friends in the Dallas area I met up with for a late dinner afterward confessed that they turned off their TVs about halfway through the debates, each already knowing where the candidates stand (and counting on the media to report on any major missteps). So debates in today's times, in order to stay relevant, are engaging in some new tactics ... which brings me to my next point:
- Friday's debates seemed more like an opportunity to trip the candidates up than an informative event. The moderators continued a recent tradition of "Jeopardy"-style questioning. Questions asked to the candidates included: Who was the first Governor of Texas, what is the average take-home salary for educators in Texas, how many jobs were lost in the private sector in Texas during the last year, etc., with the correct answer showed below on the screen a la "The $10,000 Pyramid." Medina came the closest to an accurate answer (stating that teachers make about $46,000 a year on average -- about $179 away from the on-screen "correct answer") but the rest of the questions were hit and miss in terms of relevance to state government. I don't think the Jeopardy-style grilling is fair in many cases -- some of the reporters were conjuring up Wikipedia to verify the answers. I'd imagine the candidates could each stump the debate moderators with questions of their own if given the opportunity.
- Few of the questions gave the candidates a chance to lay out their vision or address state policy specifically. The debate featured a couple of gems in terms of questions -- especially one given to Perry about why illegal immigrants can qualify for in-state tuition and why, say, Oklahomans cannot. More questions about specific state policy could enlighten viewers to the real issues a governor would face.
- Some of the questions sought to embarrass a candidate rather that educate the audience. Some examples: Hutchison was asked to clarify her stand on Roe v. Wade, but only after showing clips of her speaking in 1993 and in the Texas Debates this year defending the Supreme Court decision which allows pregnancy termination procedures. Medina was asked to clarify her position on "secession" after a clip was shown on her speaking at August's Texas Sovereignty Rally, referencing the blood sacrifice made in establishing representative democracy throughout Texas and U.S. history. A further question grilled Perry on Trans-Texas Corridor, and why he continued to push for it despite its unpopularity. Fair as all the questions may have been (though this reporter never picked up on any pro-secession remarks from Mrs. Medina -- despite the suspicions raised by the term "sovereignty") the soundbites gathered from this debate will likely be used in attack ads against each respective candidate, and those moments will likely become the lasting impressions of the debate.
What last night means to voters is likely more skepticism and confusion about the candidates. But hopefully it will lead to a flurry of Web site visits and questions to the candidates directly as they continue to hit the campaign trail. Being that this is the last debate between now and the primary, maybe viewers will also be inspired to fill in the blanks left by the hour-long debate by reading up on the candidates' Web sites, or perusing the more in-depth coverage provided by non-traditional outlets covering state politics such as LSR.
Despite my criticism, I'm still very grateful to have been invited to last night's debate -- my first time to attend in-person as credentialed media. I think it's a good start for someone wanting to know more about Rick, Kay and Debra, but this being the Information Age, one has to a little dig deeper to get the answers -- or a clearer view of the candidates.