I was wondering if anyone else thought so, but I thought CNN has presented the worst debate so far (in fairness, I was not able to see much of the first Democratic debate). I hate to say this, but I think Fox News has presented the best debate format so far, and the cleanest presentation as well.
Here is why I did not like CNN's presentation:
1. Wolf Blitzer, who usually does all right with news, stumbled and stammered quite often -- especially when trying to remember what politician's title was what. He also did a very bad job of controlling the flow of the debate: candidates (usually the front-runners or top of the second tier) who refused to be quiet (when going past the "one minute" mark, he would try to stop them but they would keep going on (and on); and when either Gravel or Kucinich would try to speak longer, they would immediately be shut down by Blitzer.
Even after the debate was over, when Larry King congratulated him on a good job and asked Wolf what he thought about this "new format", Wolf even seemed unsure how to answer before he explained he thought it was a better, more free format rather than having yellow and red lights and bell or buzzer.
2. What was the deal with the added audio (background noises -- maybe producers speaking) while the candidates were talking? One of the local newsmen's microphone did not work where the candidates could hear the question, so Blitzer had to repeat the question (a couple times this happened). Also, the camera that was "in the audience" that was moving around while aimed at the candidates speaking seemed a bit amateurish. Both the noises and camerawork were distracting.
3. The halfway point, when they switched to an "exciting" "Town Hall format" was awkward (a commercial break would have even been less bizarre).
4. Once the Town Hall format began, the people in the audience asked pre-screened questions directed at no particular candidate (which, perhaps, is a good idea, but it really takes away from the "exciting" aspect of it). This left it up to Wolf to direct to whom the question went, and the answers were usually bland. After one candidate would vaguely answer the question, Blitzer would ask a not-quite-on-topic hypothetical question ("Would you assassinate Osama bin Laden"? Seemed like a question borrowed from Fox News). Then another candidate would try, after a few minutes, to get back to the question asked by the audience member (and Bill Richardson would mess up relationship of the person in the audience)!
And why did CNN have a Town Hall meeting, with all these people you specifically bring in to see the debate and ask questions (how many asked questions -- maybe 6?), why would they then also have an emailed question?
5. The "fringe" candidates were literally on the fringe of the stage, while the three frontrunners were right cozily together. After so many people made a big deal about the Republicans trying to exclude Ron Paul from future debates, the Democrats putting Gravel and Kucinich on the edges and then Blitzer not asking them many questions is almost as bad. Are the Democrats also scared of these fringe candidates like the Republicans are of Paul?
6. Instead of having the candidates in a semi-circle or at least a moderately curved line, they were put in an almost-straight line where they had to either lean over the podium or out past their chair to see the other candidates. Poorly laid-out by CNN.
Maybe it is nitpicking (although a friend of mine was equally annoyed by this, and she's a huge fan of CNN news), but this format by the "best political team around" was substandard. I am not looking forward to the Republican debate tomorrow night if it will be the same way, and I am really not looking forward to the next Democratic debate that Wolf said will be "revolutionary" -- if they try to be as different as they can from the other previous debates on MSNBC and Fox News, it will be another fine mess. Give me back the lights and buzzers -- it at least keeps the candidates in line and more of a fair shot for all the candidates.
