Mark Barry
Analysis
10/6/12

Debates are a key element of presidential campaigns, and their large audience gives them a huge potential for influence. Much of this audience needs the mass media’s interpretation to make the debates fully meaningful. Debates tend to devote little time to the issues but the actual content to apply time to the candidates’ personalities, the process that led them to the debate, and the candidates’ preparation for the debate, leaving viewers at a loss for key issue information. These questions establish just how much influence the media has in short term perceptions, camera angles, winner and long-term perceptions of the candidates’ credibility.

Romney came off as the more energized candidate overall by consistently attacking Obama on the main issues for Republicans such as health care reform and higher taxes. The president began with long explanations and only later focused more on what his opponent was saying. The split-screen shot, which has long feared presidential candidates, no matter how many times they are reminded, seem to sometimes forget that they are still on camera even when they are not speaking. Last week, President Obama did not put on a neutral face. A neutral face is a warm but settle expression that expresses no hint of feeling no matter what. President Obama was often shown looking down and uncertain as Mitt Romney was attacking and pressuring him. Obama demonstrated that he can get stuck in the fine print, unable to prioritize and apparently unwilling or incapable of forcefully defending himself and his party. Although the president spoke longer, his words often rambled on. He mainly went over about details without delivering memorable lines. He made the same mistake critics have pointed to throughout his term.

There are typically nine cameras at debates hosted by the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan organization that oversees the productions. While the commission has final say over where those cameras are placed, they do not control the mechanics of filming like camera angles or decisions about when to cut away. The work is left solely to the network who is producing the broadcast. The other networks, which receive feeds from the cameras in the debate hall, are then free to use images from whatever cameras they choose and as many as they want. The debate may have provided more direct back and forth between the two candidates than almost any other presidential face off in modern history. The cameras showed each of the two men looking to the side slightly. When the other one was talking, each man grinned a bit or looked to the side. Overall, there were very few wide shots that would show the two men actually standing at the Podiums and facing each other. Viewing the debate with the screen divided to show the candidate speaking on one side and the candidate waiting to speak on the other, there is nothing for the eye to do except to move over and look for reactions from the listener.

The new format for the presidential debate could be the best thing that has ever happened to modern presidential face offs. The candidates will have six 15-minute segments to debate policy, with no annoying buzzers or second limits. Jim Lehrer, the veteran moderator and former host of PBS’s “News Hour,” who tried to guide the conversation, will provide the structure. Peters from CNN stated, “There is a pool feed everyone broadcasting the debate draws from. However, because there are multiple cameras in the shooting from different angles, getting different shots, the networks are able to pull a feed from any one of those and broadcast the shot as they see fit”. CNN, for example, has been using a split screen this evening, showing Mr. Romney on the left and Mr. Obama on the right. The blues and reds of Wednesday’s debate stage look just like they did in 2004 and 2008. Even Twitter, the short messaging social network, noted Wednesday night that there had already been as twice as many Twitter messages about the debate as there were for all four debates in 2008. This was a development that reflects the way Twitter and other social networking sites have matured drastically in the last four years.
In conclusion, I think the camera angles did affect my view on the debate. In that case is still shouldn’t affect how I think Romney spoke more clearly in the end. The split screens affected how I looked at President Obama’s facial reactions towards his opponent. President Obama, on the other hand, spent much more time looking down, frequently biting his lips or giving a forced smile, or even affirmatively nodding as his opponent criticized his performance and policies. The overall impression was that Romney was engaged and bringing the fight, while Obama was on the defensive or even defeated. In the end, just avoiding the poor optics of defensive listening makes the biggest difference. I think the more specific question is how communicators maintain the impression that they're actually winning