Another article on electoral debates on television, another article on the six debates broadcast, two by RTVE, two by La Sexta, one by TVE-3 and one, the first to be held, by Barcelona Tribuna-La Vanguardia? That's what I'd like to read, some might say, rather than watch them (as a diet for a single week it's very hard to digest).
But, an article on these TV debates then of the elections themselves, then of a hard-fought election campaign and a bitter election night for almost everyone? There is a serious risk that attention may have irremissibly shifted to another chapter in the never-ending political series, no less dramatic, but necessarily calmer, if only through exhaustion. Or that the taste for a posteriori analysis will not want to hear any more about candidates and parties for some time to come.
However, for the benefit of inventory, and with the advantage of looking back and in perspective at an object still close at hand, the imprint of several practical lessons, of some small progress, of certain possibilities worthy of being exploited, appears more clearly. There are already journalists, it is fair to say, television professionals, who have drawn conclusions in this respect.
A question of formats
I would say that if one thing has become clear, it is that the format of the debate has to ensure good conduct, presentable, if not irreproachable, behaviour on the part of the politicians involved. What does this mean and how is it achieved?
These television spaces do not function as correctional institutions, nor are they nurseries for minors, but neither can they respond to the populist model (to use the word properly for once) that induces conflict as a form of endless, inextinguishable spectacle, as is the case with much of Tele 5's programming (where you can see things like "Gran Hermano 7: el Debate", don't forget).
In reality, the debate format is generally torn, as journalists feel, between the desire for a lively and hard-fought dialectical exchange, which can border on acrimony and demagoguery, and the demand for rigour in what is said. And it is not uncommon for one to be detrimental to the other. Keeping faith that both extremes are compatible and that the best debates occur when both are combined must be the guiding principle.
All this comes in the light of this week's observations: the contrast between supposedly "looser" debates that ran the risk of degenerating, of becoming monothematic (on Catalonia) and rude.The debate was a more rigorous, more "watched" format that forced participants to stay on the road, not to end up in the ditch, not to cross into the oncoming lane, and not to run over the oncoming driver while respecting the rules. This was the case of the women-only debate on La Sexta on Thursday, 7 November, and in the subsequent round table discussion led by Antonio García Ferreras, the journalists were well aware of this advantage.
The difference may seem superficial to an untrained viewer, but it can also be considerable. Take the first TVE debate, for example, where the obsession of the moderator (and moderator) Xabier Fuertes with "favouring the debate" and allowing it to flow spontaneously was overshadowed by moments in which it was not that opinions were intertwined, but rather that voices overlapped, overriding the speaker's legitimate use of the floor.
In these cases, those with the worst manners, the most reductionist and obsessive, win out over the most polite, who seem, without further ado, to be apathetic (see difference between Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo and Inés Arrimadas vs. Irene Montero and Adriana Lastra in the same RTVE debate).
Here we come up against a major problem in Spanish public life. On the one hand, there are the rules and, on the other, the way to ignore them. If the usual way of behaving is more inclined to break them than to respect them, the end result is that everything is degraded and the profiteers make a killing. Ergo, what is penalised, in the end, is respecting the rules.
For this very reason, equal opportunities must be guaranteed. There is no point in paying lip service to the technical excellence of the fact that the time is controlled by professional sports referees (this was emphasised in the first RTVE debate and in the Sexta Noche debate hosted by Iñaki López) if there is no guarantee that the game can be played fairly without fear of unlawful attacks by the opposition.
It wouldn't hurt, I might add, ironically enough, for journalists to be the first to lead by example. Before getting muddy, the debate on La Sexta Noche seemed more civilised precisely by comparison with what had seemed to him, the usual Saturday night debate, with its very unedifying confrontations between opposing feathers (more of exclamation than of admiration). Which brings us to the melancholic question of whether the public space is not still more contaminated by the bad blood that runs in the media than by the bile of political professionals.
Side effects
But there is an added effect that should not be forgotten. When debates focus on campaign obsessions, the rest (of the issues, of the interests, of the programmatic points) is relegated to such an extent that it is only quoted as a recipe book, as a shopping list, as an add-on. Politicians must learn that everything has its importance, and journalists must not only remind them of this, but also urge them to discuss it in due course. And that is easier in a block format.
It will be said that they all are, but a nominally thematic debate is not the same as one in which the moderator forces you to stick to the topic and asks precise questions.
This forces (and I stress this) to focus on specific issues, to offer feasible proposals. One example is Ana Pastor (the journalist) asking for precise measures to combat climate change. Since Vox does not seem to believe in the phenomenon, Rocío Monasterio was revealed.
Knowing how to be and being without knowing
With caution as the rule, but not the limit, candidates need to be clear about what they want to get out of a debate and how to achieve it: to communicate directly with their constituents, to beat their opponents, to be in the limelight, for better or worse?
Being a protagonist in the debate does not mean winning the debate, whatever that means, especially if it generates more rejection than support.
This remains the problem of Cayetana Álvarez de ToledoThe fact is that it does not boil down to giving the impression of being even more arrogant than aggressive. Rather, it comes down to the fact that his rhetoric is basically oppositional, rather than propositional, as if he were in a dog-faced debate in parliament. But it is also a problem of competence. If you attack the PSOE, you can't just use coarse words, you have to back them up with facts and names and dates and cases.
It is striking that Iván Espinosa de los Monteros The Vox speakers generally adapted to the different formats to get the best out of them, did not take the risks of their colleagues on the right, and tried out other forms of behaviour, so that they appeared more likely to be offended than their colleagues on the right. In general, the Vox speakers adapted to the different formats to get the best out of them, did not take the risks of their colleagues on the right, and tried out other behaviours, so that they appeared more as aggrieved offended people than as unbridled aggressors (except, perhaps, in the case of Ortega Smith). I am talking about form, not substance.
I cannot fail to cite the most virtuous example in its way of explaining itself, of making the measures of a programme tangible, of accepting general blame instead of laying it on others, of pursuing a constructive rhetoric and an objective of governability (in the name, oh paradox, of a party that is only standing in three provinces).
It is Aitor EstebanAitor for President, Esteban to La Moncloa! Some may say that he is more old than bad, that his concern is only for the "Basque agenda", but his technique of "sharing" with the spectator and maintaining his style and manners without ever disdaining forcefulness (as in his confrontations with the representatives of Vox), deserves to be studied carefully.
Ideology as rhetoric
It would be a joke to claim that there has been such a thing as "ideological" debate or true confrontation of ideas, the kind that is often exemplarily called for Ignacio Urquizu. But "ideological" rhetoric, albeit in a conceptually misplaced way, could not be absent.
It is even symptomatic that the word that was conspicuous by its absence, the favourite of recent years, was "populist", and instead the term "communist" has returned with vigour. Perhaps this is because if "populist" had been in vogue, it would have had to be used to refer to Vox.
We have already referred to the Anglo-American conservative variety of some Vox formulas. Add to this that Monasterio paraphrased Margaret Thatcher's famous speech on her entrance into Downing Street in 1979, based on a prayer of St Francis of Assisi.
Men and women
The insistence on the necessary parity in the composition of electoral lists, the search for equality between men and women so that women cannot be absent from any political space made the main debate on Monday, 4 November at the Television Academy, seem, by default, intolerably masculine. It is both a sign of progress, because we cannot help but feel it, and a sign of regression.
The photo of the five men, younger rather than older (according to the conventions in vogue today), little dummies in suits, jackets without ties or ties without jackets, well planted and aggressive, bordered on the shocking or the ridiculous, like that "E" Team, duly caricatured on the Net by the "deepfake" of Face to Fake (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj5M4s-cdAw).
And there was, by the way, a counterproductive "aesthetic" effect. All the leaders are under fifty, there are no bald, pot-bellied or well-built candidates. They are all good-looking and all appear, seen as a whole, more threatening than empathetic. They are no "herd", of course, but think of a debate in which the participants were, one supposes, a "herd", Rajoy, Iceta, Girauta, Lllamazares and Vidal Quadras. We would also have found it unbearably masculine, but perhaps not as toxic.
That is why La Sexta's initiative to counterbalance, if not counter-programme, with an all-women debate was such a good idea, especially when the debate turned out to be more orderly and limpid.
This is something that society and politics have to fix, something for which television has no remedy, only relief. But as long as there are, by default, all-male debates, they will have to be compensated for by all-female debates, even if both are, in the end, rare.
Check, verify, contrast, disprove
If we believe, moreover, that the voter has the last word, it is essential that the politicians' word be subjected to scrutiny by a reliable body, including after the election debates. It is good news that the task of checking, contrasting and disproving claims, fallacies or hyperbole with what is known as "fact-checking" has become a corollary of the debate. Initiatives such as https://maldita.es/ o Newtral - Journalism, fact-checking, technology and data could not be more welcome.
Just as there is already an ombudsman for viewers in many channels, such departments should exist in all channels, starting with those that are publicly owned.
And finally....
What genre do television debates belong to? Nowhere is it written that they have to be entertaining, let alone amusing (although they should be attended with a huge sense of humour). Unlike its more dynamic and exciting (if potentially more frustrating) first cousin, election night, the demands made of the election debate are not always in line with what the television medium demands.
But we should not resign ourselves to the fact that everything is scorched earth. It is possible to sow in the hope that something will grow. Since debates are necessary, they must be clear and instructive, they must be educated and instructed by the speakers in the fray. Let us not lose sight of the fact that they have become more frequent, more plural and perhaps more rigorous. They can be improved, not as an expression of good wishes, but as a possibility that is already technically, journalistically and politically feasible. And whoever fails to improve them will be exposed.
Related article: Repetition (I): The A-side
Pablo Carbajosa
Head of the Public Speaking Department of Proa Comunicación