Presidential Debates: Style Or Substance? | Retro Report | The New York Times

The moments we remember from political debates are embedded in our political folklore, from the knockout lines to the losing gaffes. But does media coverage often miss the real lessons they offer?

Produced by: RETRO REPORT

---------------------------------------------------------------

Want more from The New York Times?

Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch. On YouTube.

Presidential Debates: Style Or Substance? | Retro Report | The New York Times

[recessiontwentytwenty]

It seems Retro report stopped making videos in 2016? That sucks I've watched alot of them just stumbled upon them a few weeks ago . They're well put together wished they had continued

[brysonconstable]

Bring back Retro Report - it's fantastic in every way

[nebularspace]

bring back retro report I agree with all these people in the comments

[Will-pxqy]

People in this comments section need to All news outlets have some bias in their content due to the bias of their writers, at least NYT is doing its best to be objective based on the values of the society they live in

[allyourcode]

I don't believe in debates. Being able to instantly respond to anything with a quip is not the most important quality that a president needs when she is actually doing the job. Doesn't work so great for TV tho :/

[ChainsGoldMask]

Where’s Retro Report gone? Make more of these please.

[juanmanuelpenaloza]

In a way, leadersip is a performance art.

[luddity]

Pretty sure the "no comment" on serious issues raised by Kennedy counted against Nixon.

[WestYorkshireGREAT]

Social Media can make or break a presidential candidate, it can also be the deciding factor of who wins and who loses

[rtyu]

(partial) article at 4:27 has it right: These aren't debates, they're just panel discussions and news conferences. But there're still useful because the candidates have nothing to hide behind: no script, no props, no help, no teleprompter. Cut through the baloney and explain your plans for, say, Medicare or Iran in 90 seconds.

I told my teacher in 1982 that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln could never get elected today. He didn't disagree.

[johnnysun]

5:54 "one bad night can destroy a campaign"
Prophetic

[ArtOfficialKreations]

President? I would argue that all we're really doing every four years is electing a mascot

[bascal]

When are you going to make more of these

[martinjordan]

WOW! this is prime time media entertainment.
What about the poor, healthcare, investment, the EU, unemployment?
Good luck America this election season.

[sunnylilme]

I LOVE debates. I follow candidates as some follow sports teams. What could matter more than personal involvement in my democracy, way of life? I'm fearful we're a culture where Kardashians matter more.

[whalesnamedshark]

I would keep them around just because there fun

[justanotherhappyhumanist]

LOL to hearing Trump say, in 2016, that ‘it’s easy to be presidential’. I guess it’s easier to say than do, eh Trump? It’s 2018 and he still hasn’t managed to be presidential!

[Dr.BestBuy]

I used to watch the debates, but in recent memory they haven't really done much of a debate. The candidates mostly say whatever they want and the pundits dont hold them accountable to the truth or do follow-ups. Hardly anything of substance comes out other than the candidates existing rhetoric. It's quite frustrating to watch the debates.

[dmitri]

the new retro report channel sucks please bring this one back :(

[BetterLifeAhead]

I they did actual debates, not whatever the word is for what candidates do, then that would be really useful for voters. It would demonstrate their ability to tell fact from opinion, find reliable sources, remain calm and clearheaded under stress, their level of rationality and common sense, etc. Campaign ads tell you what they believe, a debate would be for backing up why they believe it. You would have live fact-checking and instantly let them and the audience know that they were incorrect. If they were vague or roundabout in their answers like politicians like to do they would be told to answer the question, and if they wouldn't they'd be skipped. You could even have a points system like in competitive debates based on reliability of sources, whether facts cited were correct, whether they answered what was actually asked, etc. I don't think there's a word for what they do. I wonder how many Americans think that's what debating actually is because it's their only encounter with something with that label.