Skip to content

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Think presidential debates are dull? Thank 1950s game shows

Think presidential debates are dull? Thank 1950s game shows

"Just like on game shows, candidates are not supposed to question or interrupt each other, and specific moments are intended to humanize and personalize the candidates," argues Michael Socolow.

NBC Handout/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Socolow is an associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine.

Televised political debates continue to disappoint viewers and critics. Sometimes they even frustrate the participants themselves.

That's because, since their inception, nobody has been able to come up with a model that rival candidates would accept, and that would be useful and informative for the viewing public. The only debate arrangement everyone agreed to nearly 60 years ago largely remains in place today – the game show format.

The first TV debates were shaped by federal regulations, an enterprising network executive named Frank Stanton, and a series of negotiations that were hampered by a tight schedule and dueling campaigns.

As far back as 1936, radio broadcasters wanted to air live debates between presidential candidates. But Section 315 of the 1934 Communications Act required equal airtime be devoted to every announced candidate, preventing broadcasters from limiting the debate pool. Stanton, president of CBS from 1946 to 1971, regularly proposed debates and often went to Washington to lobby Congress to change the law. In the late 1950s, he found his moment.


America's prime-time television schedule at the time was dominated by quiz shows.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Programs like "The $64,000 Question," "Twenty-One" and "Tic-Tac-Dough" delighted audiences and turned contestants and the shows' hosts into national celebrities. The shows were all pretty similar, designed to showcase intellect while letting viewers at home test their knowledge.

In 1958, though, some players began to complain the shows were rigged, saying they were given the correct answers, or instructed to answer incorrectly, to boost suspense and attract viewers.

The revelations shocked the nation, leading to calls for more regulation of television programming. Within the industry, critics and journalists called on TV networks to renew investment in public affairs broadcasting.

Stanton seized the moment. He suggested political debates could be a way to redeem TV; NBC president Robert Sarnoff and other industry leaders joined him. Their lobbying was enough to get Section 315 suspended, and 1960 proved the perfect moment.

Both Democrats and Republicans would be nominating new candidates. These two new nominees would need to appeal to the broad, TV-watching American public in new ways.

Stanton got both Vice President Richard Nixon; who had been a champion debater at Whittier College, and Sen. John F. Kennedy to accept invitations to debate live on television. That's when the really difficult negotiations began.

Stanton's earliest concept had the candidates facing a panel of journalists who would ask questions, but representatives of both were wary of the new idea. The whole format had to be agreed on by the TV networks, the political parties and the candidates themselves.

As communications scholar John W. Self explains, nobody really called the events "debates" while the arrangements were being hammered out. Instead, they were always officially referred to as a "joint appearance series." Every detail took a long time to negotiate, as the election drew closer in late summer of 1960.

Democratic Sen. Mike Mansfield publicly worried this opportunity for fruitful exchange might end up as little more than "a beauty contest, press conference, or quiz program."

Sure enough, time pressures pushed everyone to agree on an established TV format Americans were familiar with: the quiz show. The required studios were easily available. The production staff already knew what to do. And journalists could easily moderate discussions in which candidates agreed not to directly question or answer each other.

To all, it seemed the safest way to ensure that each candidate might enhance their own reputation without risking damage to his campaign.

To the audiences, though, the similarity was obvious – and disappointing.

Historian Daniel Boorstin said they reduced "great national issues to trivial dimensions." Scholar Richard Tedlow drew the parallel more sharply, concluding that "the debates "bore as little relationship to the real work of the presidency as the quiz shows did to intellectuality."

TNC:172 Kennedy-Nixon First Presidential Debate,

Even Stanton eventually realized how his creation stymied real understanding. The best interrogators, he thought, would be the candidates themselves, who would have to understand and counter the weaknesses in each other's ideas.

"I would have the two candidates for president sit down face to face in front of the camera, and take a single issue and discuss it," he once explained. "I would have no questions from the press at all."

He even considered the most obvious objection: What would happen if one of them refused to engage properly, or wouldn't let the other get a word in edgewise?

"When you become candidates for president of the United States, you don't misbehave in front of, you know, forty million people," he explained – perhaps a bit too optimistically.

Democratic Presidential Debate - June 26 (Full) | NBC

Stanton and those early critics saw what audiences see decades later: These events are not debates at all. There's no informative interchange between participants, no considered reasoning and very little clarity about what candidates think or propose.

Instead, the quiz master, usually a well-known broadcast journalist, gently interrogates each contestant. The questions can be pointed and specific, but the answers are always soundbites tested on focus groups. The candidates' body language is rehearsed, as is quickly changing the subject, ignoring questions or misdirecting the audience's attention.

Just like on game shows, candidates are not supposed to question or interrupt each other, and specific moments are intended to humanize and personalize the candidates. Even buzzers are sometimes employed to stay on time. The candidates get thanked for playing when the game is over, while the audience considers how and why the game was won – and by whom.

The whole production is tidy, predictable, nonthreatening and occasionally entertaining. That's precisely why the two dominant political parties, and their candidates, still insist on the format.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.

The Conversation

Read More

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Podcast: How do police feel about gun control?

Jesus "Eddie" Campa, former Chief Deputy of the El Paso County Sheriff's Department and former Chief of Police for Marshall Texas, discusses the recent school shooting in Uvalde and how loose restrictions on gun ownership complicate the lives of law enforcement on this episode of YDHTY.

Listen now

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

Podcast: Why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies

There's something natural and organic about perceiving that the people in power are out to advance their own interests. It's in part because it’s often true. Governments actually do keep secrets from the public. Politicians engage in scandals. There often is corruption at high levels. So, we don't want citizens in a democracy to be too trusting of their politicians. It's healthy to be skeptical of the state and its real abuses and tendencies towards secrecy. The danger is when this distrust gets redirected, not toward the state, but targets innocent people who are not actually responsible for people's problems.

On this episode of "Democracy Paradox" Scott Radnitz explains why conspiracy theories thrive in both democracies and autocracies.

Your Take:  The Price of Freedom

Your Take: The Price of Freedom

Our question about the price of freedom received a light response. We asked:

What price have you, your friends or your family paid for the freedom we enjoy? And what price would you willingly pay?

It was a question born out of the horror of images from Ukraine. We hope that the news about the Jan. 6 commission and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court nomination was so riveting that this question was overlooked. We considered another possibility that the images were so traumatic, that our readers didn’t want to consider the question for themselves. We saw the price Ukrainians paid.

One response came from a veteran who noted that being willing to pay the ultimate price for one’s country and surviving was a gift that was repaid over and over throughout his life. “I know exactly what it is like to accept that you are a dead man,” he said. What most closely mirrored my own experience was a respondent who noted her lack of payment in blood, sweat or tears, yet chose to volunteer in helping others exercise their freedom.

Personally, my price includes service to our nation, too. The price I paid was the loss of my former life, which included a husband, a home and a seemingly secure job to enter the political fray with a message of partisan healing and hope for the future. This work isn’t risking my life, but it’s the price I’ve paid.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Given the earnest question we asked, and the meager responses, I am also left wondering if we think at all about the price of freedom? Or have we all become so entitled to our freedom that we fail to defend freedom for others? Or was the question poorly timed?

I read another respondent’s words as an indicator of his pacifism. And another veteran who simply stated his years of service. And that was it. Four responses to a question that lives in my heart every day. We look forward to hearing Your Take on other topics. Feel free to share questions to which you’d like to respond.

Keep ReadingShow less
No, autocracies don't make economies great

libre de droit/Getty Images

No, autocracies don't make economies great

Tom G. Palmer has been involved in the advance of democratic free-market policies and reforms around the globe for more than three decades. He is executive vice president for international programs at Atlas Network and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

One argument frequently advanced for abandoning the messy business of democratic deliberation is that all those checks and balances, hearings and debates, judicial review and individual rights get in the way of development. What’s needed is action, not more empty debate or selfish individualism!

In the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy!

Keep ReadingShow less
Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Podcast: A right-wing perspective on Jan. 6th and the 2020 election

Peter Wood is an anthropologist and president of the National Association of Scholars. He believes—like many Americans on the right—that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and the January 6th riots were incited by the left in collusion with the FBI. He’s also the author of a new book called Wrath: America Enraged, which wrestles with our politics of anger and counsels conservatives on how to respond to perceived aggression.

Where does America go from here? In this episode, Peter joins Ciaran O’Connor for a frank conversation about the role of anger in our politics as well as the nature of truth, trust, and conspiracy theories.

Keep ReadingShow less