This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Emerson chapter.
Everyone knows about the political debates that have been happening lately. It’s certainly not surprising, since one of those candidates on stage will be our president for the next four years, but what happened to the days when those debates were taken a little more seriously? Why aren’t people watching these debates with a keener political eye? Why aren’t people watching it at all? The answer isn’t as simple as “people don’t care.”
According to Nielsen data, Fox’s first GOP debate on August 6, 2015 had 24 million viewers, making it the highest-rated primary debate in television history. Even with these record-breaking numbers, there is a very apparent drop in numbers that leaves plenty of room for concern. Fox and CNN scored huge ratings and audiences in the first two debates, but the third debate saw a 40% drop in viewership. It’s still more than three times the highest number of viewers that CNBC got for its 2002 Winter Olympics coverage, but these numbers raise several red flags. What gives? There was significant time between the second and third debates, so it’s not a question of saturation. The race remains as dramatic as ever, and perhaps even more so with Ben Carson’s challenge to Donald Trump’s front-runner status in the days leading up to the debate. The answer lies in the perception of these debates and how it differs among Americans.
On one hand, there is the air of excitement and entertainment. No one is denying that the debates are extremely entertaining, especially with Donald Trump and his big mouth. But that is not the point of these debates. The point is to educate citizens on the candidates and their views so they can make a well thought out choice in the presidential election. College campuses, which should be the hub of political debate and concern since we are new citizens – which these laws will most affect – are overpowered by the circus and excitement that surrounds this election. Whether it’s Donald Trump drinking games, or Bernie Sanders t-shirts, it’s endorsing the element of entertainment in the election to an unprecedented extreme. If the Donald Trump drinking games aren’t enough evidence, look at the viewership of the Democratic debates. CNN’s broadcast set a record for Democratic debates in mid-October’s Democratic debate, but it still fell short of the GOP’s ratings and wasn’t even the night’s most-watched show. According to Nielsen’s numbers, the first Democratic debate of the 2016 election season averaged 15.3 million total viewers, but couldn’t top the 15.7 million viewers who tuned in to watch CBS drama NCIS.
There is another side to this, of course. This isn’t completely the fault of people who see the debates as a game; it’s also the debates themselves that are putting the nail in the coffin. Perhaps after sitting through two debates with ten people on stage fighting for scraps of time and attention, viewers realize that they’re not going to get much substance out of the format. It’s more like a sporting event than an intellectual exercise. How can any citizen, who sees the importance of these debates, tune in and watch a circus unfold with no real opinions and strategies revealed? The number of candidates doesn’t create this issue, however; the fault may lie in the most unlikely place: the referees of this sporting event. In these debates, the “refs” tried to win the game at the expense of the players, and ended up with egg on their faces. Instead of just asking questions, they continually interrupted and argued with the candidates, asked insulting questions (“comic book candidate”?), and so on. Many panelists, after the fact, admitted later that the questions got too personal and biased. But this confessional won’t help ratings and the nation’s attitude toward these debates, which seems to dwindle much like the TV ratings.
The simple solution is to structure the debates in a more efficient way to appeal to the Americans tuning in to get informed. As for the entertained, just let Trump talk and they’ll be happy enough.