These are the questions journalists always ask after a presidential debate, focused as they are on keeping score. But the answers are not much help to would-be voters, who see debates through a different lens and who are looking for the news media to help them draw their own conclusions. Citizens view debates not only as good political theater, but as one of their best opportunities to learn about the candidates, especially if they haven't decided how to vote. In 1992, a third of them said the debates were critical in helping them make up their minds. Yet instead of treating debates as a glimpse into the candidates' grasp of the issues, the pragmatism of their proposals and their poise under pressure, journalists have traditionally treated them as prize-fights.
Candidates try to rack up points or draw blood.
The news media base their judgment, in part, on the consensus of those semi-professional referees known as spin doctors. Some news organizations have tried to break free of the spinners and include the views of voters, but many of their efforts have been flawed. The latest gimmick of choice is the insta-poll, in which viewers rate the debate as it happened, by twisting dials to show their approval or disapproval. What's missing in debate coverage is not speed, but reflection. It's true that well-placed debate zingers are memorable moments, and journalists are quite right to report them.