Big ups to WPTZ-TV for designing the most uncomfortable debate setting I’ve ever seen. I believe this image, seen very briefly just after the mid-show break, was the only establishing shot in the entire one-hour presentation (broadcast live Thursday night, now viewable on the YouTube), and no wonder. It’s just bizarre.
And clearly it affected the quality of the debate. Both candidates appeared uncomfortable and didn’t really know where to look, although Amanda Janoo handled it better than Gov. Phil Scott. His eyes were constantly meandering around. He looked a bit flustered. At first I thought it was fatigue, but then I saw what the studio looked like and realized that flusteration was a perfectly normal response to the setting.
Both candidates came off much better in the previous night’s debate hosted by Vermont Public, using the same studio it uses for “Vermont This Week.” It features a circular setup that allows each participant clear lines of sight to everyone else. Camera placement is designed to be unobtrusive. The room fostered conversation, where WPTZ’s mess fostered alienation.
As you may have gathered by now, this post will be vibes-based rather than a recitation of The Candidates’ Contrasting Views On The Issues. That’s partly because other outlets have weighed in on the substance, and also because the substance is the least impactful aspect of a debate.
Much as we’d like to believe that voters enter campaigns with open minds and make informed decisions based on the issues, that’s not how it works. Most voters’ minds are made up from jump, and nothing that happens in a debate (or anywhere else) could induce them to switch sides. The relative few who can be persuaded will do so not because one candidate has a more detailed health care plan, but because of comfort level: The old Bush/Gore “Who would you rather have a beer with?” test, and the related but more relevant “Who seems capable of handling the job?” That’s less about policy than the appearance of competence.
In a word, vibes.
Continue reading
