Medford's KOBI-TV Hosts Governor Debate

Kate Brown and Knute Buehler make their case in Medford TV debate.

KOBI-TV did it right.

The KOBI format was brisk. The questions were pointed. The candidates talked about substantial things.

KOBI did the debate the way national presidential debates should do it, but don't.

The KOBI format.  Click to watch: 57 minutes.

Tomorrow's blog post will look closely at the content of the candidates' messages. I will summarize here by saying that Kate Brown repeatedly claimed bi-partisanship, working with Republicans, collaboration and progress on issues. Knute Buehler repeatedly claimed Oregon had multiple problems which Brown failed to address.  Brown defended paying teachers and firefighters the retirements they had contacted for. Buehler said he would "take on powerful entrenched interests in this state to come up with a lasting solution" to the costs of public retirements. 

More about this tomorrow.

Today, let's take a close look at why the debate was a success. It furthered the Democratic process. We actually saw and heard from candidates answering questions. It was a debate, not a a cage fight.

Outside the studio

1.  KOBI kept debate about the debate, not the stuff outside. Just outside the studio groups of supporters came to cheer their side. People with signs are more interesting visually than are people standing at lecterns, talking about the serious business of self government. 

Prior to the debate partisans on both sides showed up to "show support." This group of opponents of the LNG pipeline were chanting rhymes and slogans in the minutes before the debate. KOBI had every opportunity to "spice up" the debate coverage by alluding to the events outside, but to their credit, they did not.

2. It was a debate, not a sporting event. No cheering. An audience of about 75 were invited guests from a variety of political backgrounds. They were cautioned to listen quietly and not applaud or otherwise react except at the beginning and end of the debate. They obeyed. It meant that the focus was on what the candidates said, not on what response it elicited.

3. It wasn't about the panelists. A debate gives news people an opportunity to showcase themselves to a wider audience. Look at me! Look what a clever bold question I asked!  See how my question flummoxes or angers a candidate!  See how great KOBI is!

KOBI's people did the opposite. 

The panel of three asked brief, specific questions, with little introductory buildup. The questions seemed designed to force the candidates actually to reveal points of policy, not simply boilerplate platitudes. Example, question one: "We begin with a viewer question tonight. They ask what issue gives you the highest opportunity to cooperate with the opposing party to pass legislation?"

That is it. Start to finish, just under 9 seconds. The anchor had completed the brief explanation of the format, then immediately turned to the questioner, who immediately asked that question.

Panel of questioners

Question two was the same thing. Anchor Craig Smullen simply said that Patsy Smullen had the next question, and without further delay she began speaking, "Governor Brown, Oregon has one of the lowest graduations rates in the country. Our viewers ask, how will you fix that?"

The question was seven seconds, start to finish.

No showing off. No hogging the TV time. 

The candidates took the cue from this. They themselves each began speaking immediately and on topic.

4. Specific questions encouraged specific answers. This generally worked as intended, and answers candidates gave seemed specific to the question and essentially extemporaneous, not canned. Not always. The question "will you pledge to go to every count in the state at least once a year" could have been answered with a yes or no answer. It wasn't. Governor Brown said she will immediately go to where she is needed, to Roseburg after a shooting, to the Medford viaduct to inspect the cracks, to the scene of fires. Knute Buehler didn't explain how he was going to solve the PERS problem. Still, the KOBI format was disciplined enough that the candidate responses were entirely different from presidential debates, where candidates take a key word from a long question to justify re-delivering that paragraph from their stump speeches. That is the standard. Not here.

5. The format let us see each candidate's personality. Brown spoke quickly, and generally used precise, formal language. She said "infrastructure failure in a seismic event" rather than "bridge fall down" and it projected experience and self confidence.  Knute Buehler wore an open shirt and no tie, he spoke more slowly and conversationally than did Brown, and he opposed nearly everything Brown did, but in the genial tone of an explainer. 

She came across as the knowledgable pro. He came across as the nice guy who disagrees on everything with the incumbent. That positioning was obviously intentional on both parts, and the format allowed them to present themselves as they chose to.

6. No bickering. The format allowed one candidate to talk, the other to respond, then the first candidate to respond back--then stop. No more back and forth. The format avoided comments on the comments on the comments. The questioners immediately moved to a new topic.The net effect was for the discussion to be about the issues brought up by the new question rather than the comments made by the opposing candidate.

This helped the overall tone of the debate.

Summary:

This may have worked out better for democracy in Oregon than it worked out for KOBI. This was an opportunity to be in the center of an exciting visual brawl: KOBI as breaking news. Instead, they hosted a genuine debate. Debates are more important than brawls, but may not draw as large an audience. No good deed goes unpunished.

It is nice to see our news media do the right thing.