How to sponsor a candidate debate: an Interview with Janet Brown - Special Feature - Interview

Ron Faucheux

The following interview was conducted with Janet Brown, the Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, in her Washington, D.C. office. The topic of the interview was sponsoring candidate debates at the statewide, district and local levels.

Q: What are the most important decisions a media organization or a sponsoring organization has to make in terms of developing an effective debate format?

BROWN: The single most important factor for the sponsoring organization is to decide what will help viewers and listeners get information that will assist them in deciding how to vote. The organization needs to take into account who the audience is, when in the election the debate is taking place, how much is already known about the candidates and therefore what format would be most helpful to voters. Debates should provide citizens with information that is useful in their decision-making process.

Q: In looking at debates, there seem to be six basic formats that are used around the country in statewide, district and local races. Could you tell us what you think are the advantages and disadvantages of each format? Podium format (where the candidates stand behind podiums)?

BROWN: The Podium format is the most traditional. It is the one that has been used most often at the presidential level. There are those who think that it impedes spontaneous conversation because of its formality. While it's helpful to have, perhaps, one podium format debate, using other formats is a good idea also.

Q: Town meeting format (where the candidates are seated on stools on a stage in front of, or surrounded by, a live audience of citizens)?

BROWN: The obvious advantage is that citizens ask questions of the candidates. Town meeting is popular with the public. They really like questions posed by people that they can identify with. One of the disadvantages is that you don't know what is going to be asked. You may end up with duplication. Questions that are quite narrow may be asked -- of interest to the people who ask them, but not necessarily representative of interest across the board.

Q: Roundtable Conversation format (where the candidates seated right next to one another at a round, oval or square table along with the debate moderator and any questioners)?

BROWN: Roundtable Conversation debates are very good because they encourage conversation. They seem to put candidates at ease. This format worked very well in 2000 at the presidential level.

Q: Participant Panel format (where multiple candidates are seated at a long, rectangular table, and the moderator and any questioners may be seated at a facing table or may be standing at a podium)?

BROWN: A panel of candidates is probably the best way to do it when there are many participants, but try to seat them in a semi-circle or a horseshoe rather than a straight line. It facilitates conversation when they can see each other.

Q: Television Talk Show format (where the candidates are seated in chairs or on a sofa and the host is seated in a chair or behind a small desk; a variation of this format is commonly used in late-night entertainment programs such as Jay Leno's Tonight Show and The Late Show with David Letterman)?

BROWN: Talk shows are now so familiar to viewers and listeners that there is an enormous feeling of comfort with them. They are seen as entertaining. By the same token, I think we learned in 2000 that talk shows are not generally perceived by the public as having the seriousness of a debate. They don't match debates in substantive value.

Q: Television remote interview format (where the candidates are in a studio, seated, looking into cameras; the television audience would usually only see a talking-head framed shot of each participant, similar to ABC'S Nightline program, either full-screen or split-screen)?

BROWN: These programs may be helpful in eliciting information, but candidates often seem less comfortable in this format, which audiences will sense. It doesn't necessarily make for a fluid conversation, as interviewer and candidates may talk over one another inadvertently.

Q: When a candidate debate is held in a room outside of a TV studio, what factors should be considered in terms of the type of facility that is needed?

BROWN: The most important one is whether the event can be handled with technical proficiency. Is the facility equipped for television production? If not, how are you going to turn it into a first-rate production facility and what will it cost? The sponsor needs to develop a budget early on so there are no surprises about what needs to be underwritten down the way.

One way to control costs is to get venues and services donated free of charge. Access is an important issue. Can people get to the facility easily, even during rush hour? Are the police satisfied that the debate won't conflict with other events and vice versa? Can the facility be made secure in terms of candidate and journalist access? Those issues should be considered before you make a final decision on debate location.

Q: What about equipment requirements? What do debate sponsors need to know about that and if they don't know about it where can they get it?

BROWN: The most important thing is to consider television and radio broadcast needs and any other issues that address coverage of the debate. If sponsors have questions, they should consult experienced people familiar with those kinds of issues. Ask a local television station if they have any alumni who might be available to help.

Q: Are there ways to hold down costs without harming the quality of the program?

BROWN: The main thing is to do a budget first. What is absolutely necessary for the purpose of the debate? Then, what's on a wish list of things you'd like to do if you had the resources? Develop a budget and make sure it reflects everything that could reasonably be required. Try to figure out how you can raise those funds or how services might be donated, perhaps earning the donors recognition.

Q: Let's talk about audience control. When a live public audience is invited to attend a debate, what are the best ways to ensure the audience is balanced between supporters of the candidates? What is the best way to avoid audience disruptions, excessive applause, laughter, jeering and noise? Should the audience have to have tickets for entry? If so, where do they get them? Should they be free? How should tickets be allocated?

BROWN: The audience question is one of the stickiest that we deal with. Obviously, when you have a debate there are a lot of members of the community who would like to attend. But it is extremely important not to have such a large audience that it poses built-in difficulties, such as noise or security problems. In presidential debates, the tickets are divided between the candidates who are debate participants and the commission. The commission's tickets go exclusively to the people who have helped produce the event, to donors, host site officials and community volunteers who have helped put it together.

It is inevitable that supporters of a candidate will want to make their feelings known. It puts the burden on both the sponsoring organization and the moderator to make it very clear up front that audience noise is unfair to the candidates and unhelpful to the debate because, in a broadcast, it is unclear to viewers and listeners where the noise is coming from. Cameras are usually directed to only the participants on stage.

You have to persuade the audience that it is rude to take up time with intrusions. At the end of the day, disruptions and noise take away time from their candidates.

We have never sold tickets to presidential debates. The CPD is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization and selling tickets is not something that we have thought appropriate. The main thing is for the sponsor to allocate and distribute tickets in a fair manner that doesn't get in the way of putting on a useful event.

Q: Timekeeping is an important feature of most debates. What methods do you think work best? And which methods should be avoided? What signal devices should be used?

BROWN: Timekeeping is extremely important. You need someone whose job is solely timekeeping. Do not assign that task to the moderator. There are different ways to do this, but we have someone at the production table who is in charge of the clock.

The method that we have used to signal the candidates is very simple. It's a series of traffic lights - green, amber, and red -- that are within the view of the candidates. They can be activated by the timekeeper so that it is clear to the candidates how much time they have left. The moderator has to enforce the time limits and be prepared to tell the candidates when they have run over.

Q: At what point should the candidates be signaled?

BROWN: In presidential debates, the green light goes on when their time starts. When they have 15 seconds to go, the amber light goes on. When their time is up, the red light goes on.

Q: You actually use an electronic device for this?

BROWN: It's very simple and inexpensive. Oversized cards can be used instead, but you want to make sure that the timekeeper is not trying to get the candidates' attention in a way that is distracting.

Q: When candidates and their campaigns negotiate debate rules and format features with sponsoring organizations, are there any issues that should be fixed and taken off the negotiating table?

BROWN: The sponsoring organization should make a recommendation for the debate that focuses on the important issues. In other words: the number of debates, the length of debates, the topics, single moderator, or panel.

Put the big issues in a format recommendation and place it in front of the candidates as a starting point. Obviously, candidates will want a say, but it's the sponsor's duty to represent the interest of the public.

Simple is always better. Try to keep to the issues that affect the utility and the quality of the debate.

Q: What input should candidates and campaigns have in debates once the basic rules are set and the format is decided?

BROWN: Candidates and campaigns have their own objectives in debate negotiations. Again, the main thing is for the debate sponsor to keep the interest of the public in mind. If the campaigns and the candidates have issues they feel strongly about, that's fine -- put those on the table and try to reach a fair resolution. They may relate to rather specific details that have to do with the way candidates come onto the stage, the order of speaking, and manner of introduction. There is no end to what candidates and campaigns may want to raise.

Q: What about candidates that want to renegotiate points after they were decided? Is there a way to stop that?

BROWN: The public needs to understand what the sponsor is recommending, and why the recommendation best serves their interests. If points come up for renegotiation as a campaign strategy, and they aren't serving the public interest, the sponsor should point this out.

Once decisions are made, I would strongly urge a sponsor to move on. You can renegotiate up to the eleventh hour, and that can start to affect your costs if you have to rework things. At the end of the day, you don't want surprises, budgetary or otherwise.

Q: How and when should sponsors invite candidates to participate?

BROWN: The earlier you contact campaigns, the less they can claim that they weren't kept informed, or that they scheduled something else and can't come. The more you can keep campaigns informed, the better chance you will have in bringing everybody together.

Q: Is there anything to know about the actual invitation? Does a letter suffice, a phone call, some documentation that everybody was invited on the same day, that there wasn't unfairness in the process?

BROWN: Sponsors should be business-like and absolutely fair, in order to show that no campaign is being favored or left behind. A letter of invitation to come to a meeting, or a letter outlining the sponsor's plans, is the best way of doing it. Again, the sponsor wants to be able to say to the public this is the way we proceeded and these are the responses we got.

Q: Do you think candidates should be allowed to use props and visuals?

BROWN: Once you open the door to props and visuals, it's hard to know where to draw the line. If someone arrives with large charts and pointers, where does it stop?

If you want to allow props and visuals, you must make sure the rules are fair to all the candidates. This is also a production question. If you have charts, you have to cue your camera people when to focus on them so that they will be legible to the home audience.

Whatever you do, get the ground rules straight from the start.

Q: What about notes? Should they be able to bring in papers, index cards and other documents? Where does it stop?

BROWN: A sponsor may decide notes are OK. But consider whether you want candidates rifling through papers and looking for documents while they are on the stage. The candidate may feel notes are helpful. Referring to them may not seem effective to the home audience who may prefer to hear what the candidate says instead of watching him/her look for a citation.

Decide what you think will be helpful to the audience and make a recommendation to the candidates with an explanation for it.

Q: In terms of sponsoring debates for statewide candidates for, let's say, gubernatorial and U.S. Senate elections, what do you think is the minimum length the program should be? How about the maximum length?

BROWN: If you have a limit on the amount of time that a candidate can take to answer a question, divide that amount of time into the length of the debate and you'll discover how many questions you can ask and, therefore, how many topics you can cover. I don't think you can have a particularly efffective debate for any major office in under 60 minutes. By the time you take out the introduction and either opening or closing statements, you don't have a great deal of time. If you go more than 90 minutes, you are apt to lose some of your audience. The total number of debates factors in as well.

Q: What about when television producers want to fit a debate within the confines of a pre-existing television program? Is there any way to do that well? Perhaps limiting it to a single topic area?

BROWN: If you limit it to one topic, and you have an experienced interviewer who can conduct a focused conversation, that is the best way to try to do a debate within a 30-minute show. But again, if that's a half-hour commercial broadcast, and you have to take out time for ads, you are down to a small amount of time for actual discussion.

Q: What about down-ballot offices, such as the U.S. House, state legislative seats and local offices?

BROWN: Having debates is better than not having debates. If the only way to have one is to have a 30- or 45-minute discussion, then by all means do that. The time limit shouldn't be an obstacle. But, unless you firmly structure a conversation, 30 to 45 minutes can go by in a hurry - especially when you are addressing a broad range of topics.

Q: What considerations should go into deciding how long opening and closing statements should be?

BROWN: The public suspects that opening and closing statements are pre-re- hearsed speeches. If you have closing statements, you don't necessarily need opening statements - particularly at the end of a rather long campaign. Quite often, closing statements reflect something about the debate that just preceded them. In either event, two minutes is enough. If it's any longer, it starts to be significant time taken away from the debate.

Q: What about answers to questions? How long should they be?

BROWN: Ours have always been two minutes. We have tried, as you know, to loosen debate rules so that the moderator didn't have to work with strict time limits and could basically serve as a traffic cop facilitating questions and answers back and forth. So far we have not been 100 percent successful in getting time limits taken off. Candidates are used to time limits and tend to like them.

Q: How about rebuttals and responses to rebuttals?

BROWN: Our rebuttals are limited to one minute. We don't have responses to rebuttals, mainly to keep things moving so the candidates can address more topics.

Q: What is the best, fairest way to select a debate moderator?

BROWN: We look for three attributes: (1) someone who is familiar with the candidates and the important campaign issues, (2) someone who has had extensive television experience and will be able to handle the technical responsibilities, and (3) someone who will remember that their name is not on the ballot and that they are not on stage to compete with the candidates but to facilitate a conversation. It is extremely important that the method of selecting a moderator be handled discreetly, fairly and efficiently. Names should not be tossed out publicly for consideration. The selection process should also be handled in a way that gives the moderator ample time to prepare.

Q: How about debate questioners, if there are questioners in addition to a moderator?

BROWN: Again, the same three attributes that go into the selection of the moderator are equally important for debate questioners. Panelists should be discouraged from asking the "gotcha" question, which may showcase the panelist's area of expertise but not produce a particularly informative response. Clearly, if you are going to have several questioners, you should be aware of representation on the panel. If it's going to be a panel of journalists, you want to make sure you have both print and electronic journalists that represent different segments of the market. The most important thing is that they take their responsibilities very seriously - which is to get information from the candidates that's helpful to the viewers and listeners.

Q: What input should the candidates have in the selection of questions?

BROWN: Input from any source, if provided respectfully and discreetly, is helpful. The debate sponsor needs names of people for the panel who are respected and responsible, and who will take this duty very seriously. Questioner selection should not be a protracted public process.

Q: How should debate moderators prepare themselves?

BROWN: The first task is to be familiar with the issues that are of the greatest interest to the public. Moderators also need to understand how to ask questions that will get new information on the record for the benefit of the people who are watching, listening to, and reading about the debate. They also need experience in the technical aspects of the debate.

Q: How tough should moderators be in enforcing rules? When is flexibility allowable and where?

BROWN: The moderator needs to be someone who is going to be comfortable in the debate, which is a high-stakes event, and also in interrupting if need be, which is difficult. It can be intimidating, but the moderator must keep the debate on track and fair. By the same token, let's assume that the debate is going along so well that a serious, substantive discussion has taken off. If that means the moderator needs to give a little more time to let the candidates keep going with it, personally I think that is a good idea. But it takes a lot of discretion and self-confidence on the part of the moderator.

Q: What if a candidate repeatedly violates rules - let's say, interrupting his or her opponent or refusing to abide by time limits - how should the moderator handle it?

BROWN: Moderators in presidential debates are prepared to say, "Excuse me, candidates, but if you do not stick by the rules that you accepted them we will stop the program and renegotiate the rules." They are prepared to point out that the sponsoring organization came up with the format and tell the candidates, "You agreed to it and you are not sticking by it. If you want to change the rules, that's fine, but we are not going to make it up as we go along." That can involve a little bit of tension, but it may need to be said. It's not fair to other candidates to have one candidate change the rules on the spot. A moderator needs to figure out ahead of time how control will be maintained.

Q: In taking those experiences and applying them to state and local elections, downballot candidates may be willing to take chances that presidential candidates are unwilling to take. What is the ultimate sanction for a candidate who just isn't behaving properly? Is it stopping the debate? Is it asking the candidate to leave the debate? Is it turning off the candidate's microphone?

BROWN: Any of those are options, if need be. The sponsor and the moderator need to decide upfront if something gets out of hand what are they going to do. The same question applies if someone in the audience gets out of hand. You need to decide how are you going to address a situation that goes differently than planned. That way you won't leave the moderator out there trying to wing it.

Q: When there are audience questions for the candidates, what is the best way to select the members of the audience who will ask the questions? What about screening the questions? What methods work best?

BROWN: When we have had town meeting debates, the Gallup Organization has selected the participants. Their threshold question for participants chosen by telephone interviews was whether they had decided for whom to vote. Our objective was to get undecided voters. You clearly want to avoid having an audience that is skewed for one candidate or one party. There are lots of different ways to achieve balance, but make sure you do.

In our 2000 town meeting, audience members were asked to submit two or three questions several hours beforehand to ensure a representative range of topics. The moderator can then select the questions to be asked and call on the individuals who submitted them to actually pose the questions to the candidates.

Q: Should the candidates have access to staff members during debates?

BROWN: That is not a good idea. Once you start the debate, allowing other people to come on stage -- absent some health emergency or production problem -- isn't very helpful to the audience that is trying to focus on the candidates.

Q: How do you ensure that a TV production crew shows fairness to the candidates participating, on issues such as reaction shots, shot framing, sound quality and lighting?

BROWN: It is very important that the production crew understand that the sponsor is responsible for the event and that the sponsor needs to be absolutely fair. The audience is not going to be well served if the debate is less than optimal on any front, whether it is lighting, sound, the set or anything else.

With regard to reaction shots, shot framing, things like that, we have an understanding upfront of what will be allowed and what will not. Decide how many cameras will be used, where will they be placed, and what they will cover. That way, candidates can't say, "I didn't understand that this would be allowed and I think it was unfair."

Q: What about candidate make-up? Microphones? Allowances for physical limitations?

BROWN: Candidates should be responsible for their own make-up. The debate sponsors should be responsible for microphones and the sound system. We use fixed microphones, no hand-held ones. Our microphones all have backup systems.

Obviously the sponsor should ensure that the set allows for any candidate's physical limitations to be accommodated in a way that is fair and dignified.

Q: Any tips for set design? Furniture? Platforms? Backdrops? Chair and stools?

BROWN: Simple is always better. Sets should be handsome but plain. The dark royal blue backdrop that presidential debates have used is very complimentary. The furniture should be unmarked and comfortable. Stay away from busy and cluttered.

The crew that designs and builds the set for the presidential debates does sets for television stations all over the country. These kinds of professionals are available through the Presidential Debate Commission to help local sponsors decide on the look that they want and how to achieve it at a reasonable cost.

Q: What kind of staff is needed to manage a debate held at a public facility?

BROWN: You don't need a large staff, but you do need some experienced people to make sure things go smoothly. Someone needs to be responsible for all the different things we've covered, including where the media will be accommodated and have access to candidates afterwards. There is plenty of room for volunteers. But you don't want to put a volunteer in charge of something that they have had no experience with. This is a great time to look for people in your community who have experience with political and media events and ask if they could give some time and expertise.

Q: Are there any legal issues a debate sponsor should know about? Including FCC, FEC and IRS rules? Copyright and rebroadcast rights?

BROWN: That is a really important issue; I'm glad you raised it. Any debate sponsor should thoroughly research all federal, state or local rules that might apply to the broadcast, to the debate itself, to the rebroadcast, to the transcript and to who is invited to participate in the debate. Research those issues ahead of time. If it means touching base early with an attorney with broadcast or election law expertise, do it.

Getting information up front helps avoid problems on the back end.

Q: What should media organizations do to promote debates to ensure there is a large audience?

BROWN: Debates are about civic education. In our experience, the more attention is focused on the debates, the more opportunity there is for the public to learn from the debates. Media organizations should not only promote the debate itself but also take advantage of the opportunity to publish articles, sponsor pre-debate forums, and distribute other materials that give helpful information for the public to review ahead of time. Our DebateWatch program was created to evaluate the debates and find out whether people found them helpful. Initiatives like this can help increase a debate's effectiveness as an educational event, and give the debate sponsor more bang for the buck.

Q: If a debate sponsor wants to encourage more substantive discussion of serious issues in a debate, and discourage prepackaged sound bites and empty sloganeering, are there any tips you'd recommend in terms of the format and the rules?

BROWN: The looser the rules the better. Have a seasoned moderator. Don't allow materials or props in the debate. These steps should maximize your chances of having the candidates answer questions in a way that isn't prepackaged and that hopefully will spark a substantive conversation. The more predictable the questions and the less spontaneous the conversation, the more you will hear the same prepackaged answer that you've heard before.

Q: So it really requires a lot of trust in the moderator?

BROWN: A lot of trust. The moderator must be familiar with the candidates and issues so that he or she can bring out new information that voters may not have heard before during the campaign.

Q: What services does the Presidential Debate Commission offer to media and civic organizations who want to sponsor nonpresidential debates?

BROWN: We are here to help in anyway we can on two fronts. One is production. If we can help a sponsor understand anything that has to do with format or negotiation or promotion or technical issues, we are delighted to do that. The second is on the voter education front. We have tried different programs ever since our first debates in '88 and many can be adapted to other races.

If debate sponsors call or e-mail the Commission, I am happy to talk with them. If they have a specific question that needs input from our production crew, I'm delighted to refer them to those individuals.

Q: What are the most often asked questions you get from state and local debate sponsors and media people?

BROWN: The most often asked questions relate to how the sponsor plans the debate on three fronts: (1) How do you negotiate with candidates, (2) What's the best way to develop a sound format, and (3) How do you put the event together. We have had a lot of experience in all three areas so we can often save people headaches -- and are delighted to do so.

This article was prepared as part of the Debate Advisory Standards Project, sponsored by the Center for American Politics and Citizenship at the University of Maryland and funded through a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts. For more information, go to www.debateproject.com.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2002 Gale Group