The Press MONDAY, JULY 25, 1966. No "Great Debates”

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31120, 25 July 1966, Page 12

The Press MONDAY, JULY 25, 1966. No " Great Debates”

The outline of radio and television arrangements for the General Election campaign promises a livelier use of television by the political parties although they will continue to place most reliance on radio broadcasts. In the three weeks or so of the campaign candidates will appear for a total of three hours and a half on television compared with more than 15 hours of radio broadcasting, mostly of public speeches. This bias may result in part from the reasonable fear that, while television has only one channel, too many viewers would resent a greater dislocation of entertainment. If political television broadcasts are well managed, informative, and revealing, such fear will be ill-founded. The liveliest television programmes will probably be those in which the party leaders will be asked questions submitted by electors. These programmes, like the two panel programmes in each of the four television regions in which party representatives will be questioned, follow formulas well tried abroad.

One omission from the arrangements need not be regretted: a television debate between the party leaders. Such a debate would have two famous precedents in American politics, although the difference in political systems is sufficient to make those precedents irrelevant The first of the “ great “ debates ” between political candidates was in 1858, when Judge Stephen Arnold Douglas and Abraham Lincoln met in seven much-publicised engagements during their contest for the Illinois seat in the Senate. The series made the then obscure Lincoln a national figure; although he lost the Senate campaign he easily won the Presidency in 1860. In 1960 the United States television networks brought an estimated audience of 120 million Americans face to face with Vice-President Nixon and Senator John Kennedy in four debates each lasting an hour. The programmes were welcomed as an enlightening and enlivening contribution to the presidential campaign. Yet serious doubts remain on whether that form of debate served the electorate well. One commentator remarked: “An election campaign should not be “a ‘quiz kid’ show”. Objections to the form of those debates, in which the candidates were Questioned and had to answer within strict time limits, would be still more valid in New Zealand politics. New Zealanders are not electing one man to high executive office; and our party leaders do not embody the full character of their parties. The tense confrontation of presidential candidates in 1960 did not reveal the qualities most needed for the office. The premium was on glibness and fluency, on a ready wit, and on self-assurance; not on patience, prudence, sagacity, or political adroitness. An incomplete picture of the two men was presented. It encouraged the belief that major questions can be dealt with spontaneously in two or three minutes. Neither candidate dared to admit frankly that he did not know all the answers. The Vice-President, as a man in office, was much more restricted than an outsider in answering questions or proclaiming policy. Viewers saw a clash of personalities. They saw, in an atmosphere of tension and under the physical discomfort of klieg lights, demonstrations of good memory and equanimity. They heard many superficial and trivial questions and brief, superficial answers to important and involved questions. It is doubtful whether they saw what kind of President Senator Kennedy was to make in the next three years, or what kind of President Mr Nixon would have made. Political candidates in New Zealand will not suffer the restrictions imposed by this sort of programme and the electors’ view of them will not be distorted. The New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation’s proposals, made with the concurrence of the three main parties, seem to be a good attempt to meet the wishes of the candidates and of the electors, so far as they can be ascertained.