Unrevised

Members present

Lord Inglewood (Chairman)

Baroness Bakewell

Lord Clement-Jones

Lord Dubs

Baroness Fookes

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill

Lord Razzall

Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Earl of Selborne

________________

Examination of Witness

Janet Brown, Executive Director for the Commission on Presidential Debates

Q20 The Chairman: Is that Janet Brown?

Janet Brown: Yes, it is.

The Chairman: It is? Good, terrific.

Janet Brown: Good morning.

The Chairman: Can you hear us?

Janet Brown: I can very clearly, thank you.

The Chairman: Good, thank you. I am Richard Inglewood, Chairman of the House of Lords Committee here. Thank you very much for agreeing to talk to us. We appreciate it. This event is being recorded so a transcript will be taken. When we get into the first round of questioning, please explain who you are and identify yourself for the record. We have had a brief CV about your background and your involvement so I think we understand that. If you would like to make a brief opening statement that would be very nice, otherwise we can go bowling straight on into the formal evidence session, if you are happy.

Janet Brown: I would be very pleased to do that and I think the time is better spent going straight into the session. My name is Janet Brown and I am the Executive Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Q21 The Chairman: Thank you very much. Perhaps I might start the questioning by asking you how the Commission on Presidential Debates came into being in 1987. Could you also outline how your system of debates works? As we understand it, you at the commission judge the eligibility of the candidates to participate in the debates, run the debates, produce the programmes and then make them available to the broadcasters after that. Also perhaps you could tell us a bit about how the commission succeeded in ensuring that the debates have taken place since 1987. You do not find that politicians these days just walk away, as took place after the first debates in 1960. Also please could you more generally—and there will be further questioning—tell us about the stability that the debates have engendered in terms of the way they operate?

Janet Brown: The way that the commission got started is that there were two formal studies in 1985 and 1986. One was by a panel that was held in Washington DC at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which was then part of Georgetown University. It was co-chaired by Melvin Laird and Robert Strauss, two leaders in the public policy field, and there was a panel of 40 leaders from public and private sectors that were involved in looking at a variety of election-related issues, including debates. There was almost complete agreement that, given the importance of general election debates, an entity should be created that was responsible only for the debates, with no other election-related tasks. That was followed by a study in 1986 at the Institute of Politics at Harvard. It was chaired by Newton Minow, the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. That study focused only on debates and produced what was essentially a blueprint for the creation of the commission, which then took place in February 1987.

The way the commission was created is that it is largely a function of Federal Election Commission law, which has two requirements of general election debate sponsors. One is that they be either a media organisation or a not-for-profit. We are the latter. The second requirement is that the debate sponsor will have pre-published guidelines to indicate how participants in the general election will be invited to those debates.

The commission was started in early 1987 and it has sponsored and produced all the presidential and vice-presidential debates since then. As you mentioned, Mr Chairman, we are responsible for selecting the candidates and we are also responsible for all the aspects of putting the debates together. We are the production company. We have a production staff; we work with the television networks to select the dates for the debates; we select the sites; we raise the funding; we work with law enforcement agencies, starting at the federal level, on the security around the debates; and we do voter education activities to maximise their benefit. It is approximately a two-year process to plan for putting these together in a way that maximises the soundness of their production and the maximum level of their educational value to the American public.

The biggest plus that this country has is the expectation that debates will happen. As you know, they first started with the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960. There was a lapse until 1976 when they resumed, but since 1976 they have always taken place and there is an expectation in this country that they will take place. The commission’s job is not only to ensure that tradition but to try to work progressively to make sure that formats every cycle are refined so that the educational value of these 90-minute forums is the maximum for the huge audiences that watch these, not only in the United States but around the world. The audiences for US debates are second only to major sporting events. They are unlike anything else that happens in this country in terms of real-time appearances by the leading candidates answering the same questions in the same venue, so the audiences are enormous. They range from approximately 35 million to 70 million, which of course is an incomplete and imperfect way of measuring audiences now.

The answer to your final point is that when you have the expectation of the American public that these will take place, the most important role for the commission is to represent the trust of the public, that not only will they come off as planned and announced but they will be absolutely fair and neutral in their substance, in their moderation and in meeting the public’s expectation that they will learn from these sessions and that they will take away information regarding the issues and the candidates that is helpful in terms of how they decide to cast their votes.

Q22 The Chairman: That is an extremely helpful introduction of the subject. I was very interested in a comment you made towards the start of your remarks, which was that under federal election law there are two categories of people who might promote debates in an election. Since your organisation has been established, have you had any rivals, anybody suggesting they would rather do it than you, or have you effectively now won the day so that you are the obvious and accepted vehicle for carrying on this particular form of political discussion?

Janet Brown: There are always rivals. This is a very visible franchise and there is always a group or groups of people who believe that they could do this better. If someone comes along who clearly is better able to serve the public interest then they should try their hand at this. The thing you learn when you go into the debate business is that many forces conspire to try to make these fall apart.

I have been asked who it is that the commission represents, whether it is the candidates, the media or the public. The answer is that the candidates and their campaigns have significant resources to pursue their objectives, which are very important in terms of victory in their campaign. The media are commercial entities that also have legitimate interests in trying to garner the maximum audience, readers, listeners, for their product. This is a news event and they are there to cover but, again, they should protect their interests and go about the coverage of these debates in the way that advances their own mission. The commission is here to represent the public that wants to see and hear these debates and see and hear them in a manner that is educational. At the end of the day, if we cannot bring all of the forces that threaten to fly apart because of their own interests in this, then we will not have succeeded on the part of the public. That is what we are here to do and it is why it is so important to try to keep one’s eye on the ball and make sure that that is the single mission that we try to do.

To go back to the original question, I think that one reason the commission has succeeded is that we have not taken on any other activities or issues. We do not have any other conflicts in terms of our involvement in the campaign. We do not represent what the candidates stand for; we do not poll; we do not lobby; we do not have any other hand in the electoral process. We have gone out of our way to make sure that our production team is seen as being a set of professionals who have supreme skills in terms of their production experience. It will bring to this programme the highest quality of skills and expertise when it comes to the actual production itself so that no one walks away from this and says that the commission in any way was biased or unfair towards one candidate, one party or whatever. That would be extremely improper. So the neutrality, the fairness and the absolute first-class reputation of the effort becomes extremely important. If it were seen that we were not pursing that kind of route, that would be wrong.

The Chairman: Who decides that you are going to do the debates rather than somebody else?

Janet Brown: That is a very good question, because the fact is there is no law in this country that mandates debates. There is no requirement that candidates debate and therefore there is no entity that decides who will sponsor and produce the debates. The two studies I mentioned, in 1985 and 1986, were conducted by people who had extensive debate and campaign experience. It was their opinion that if there were an entity that was put together with only this mission in mind, and whose board reflected impeccable leadership by people who understood the complexity of this and would only stand for the highest quality of neutral and substantive discussion, that was the best way to go about this. Fortunately that proved quite wise.

The Chairman: That is very interesting.

Q23 Baroness Bakewell: Can you tell us something about the commission itself? How is it funded, how is the board constituted and how is it organised? Does it meet regularly? Does it network? Can you expand that, please?

Janet Brown: We are a private corporation, Lady Bakewell, headquartered in Washington DC. We not only have to be in conformance with Federal Election Commission law but since we are a not-for-profit we have what is referred to as a non-profit tax exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service. Otherwise we operate like a private corporation. We have a very small staff. You are looking at half of us at the moment. The production team is all brought on for the debates themselves and consists of about 65 professionals who come together to do the production aspects of the debate. We have outside legal and accounting counsel and we have an 11-person board of directors that is very hands on in terms of the decisions and policies that we pursue and execute.

We are funded privately. The contributions to the commission that support our work come from the debate venues where we put on the debates, from corporations, foundations and occasionally individuals. We partner with a variety of other not-for-profits for the work that we do and those depend on whether these projects focus on the US debates or whether they focus on our work internationally, which increasingly is a very busy part of our portfolio, helping particularly emerging democracies that want to start their own debates and come to the commission for assistance. All the work is privately funded.

Q24 Baroness Bakewell: Could you tell me something about the 11 members of the board and whether they ever run into conflict of interest because of their other professional interests?

Janet Brown: The board is fastidious about making sure that there are no other activities that they undertake that would pose a conflict to their serving on the board of the commission. If there are, we discuss those and see whether or not it makes sense for them to step away from their work for the commission. Obviously they are people who have had extensive experience in the realm of public policy and politics along with other activities such as education. We have the president of Notre Dame on our board and we have former members of the United States Senate. It is an extraordinary collection of people who take their commitment to the CPD extremely importantly in terms of acting as a unit, regardless of what their past political involvement or preferences might be. But part of what we pursue very aggressively is to make sure that there are no activities that they undertake that might prove to be a conflict, particularly as one enters a general election time.

Q25 Baroness Bakewell: Do you have an ongoing process of assessment of success?

Janet Brown: Assessing success?

Baroness Bakewell: Do you measure how well you have done?

Janet Brown: The success of the debates in very large part is governed by looking at two things: how many people watch them and how many people cite the debates in exit polls as helping them make their minds up. In this country even a poorly watched debate of 35 million is an audience that is many times greater than almost any other kind of television programming. A big audience of 70 million is second only to Super Bowl or something of that nature. So these audiences are absolutely huge and, of course, that is significant in a time when people have many other choices. When we got going, if the major television networks were carrying the debates there was little other choice in terms of what someone could watch. Now, of course, there is endless choice. The second metric that is valuable is that for many cycles now exit poll data show that people cite the debates more than any other single factor in how they decide to vote. That is not to say they are changing minds. That is to say that the people polled find them extremely helpful in how they decide how to vote.

Baroness Bakewell: Thank you. That is extremely helpful.

Q26 Lord Clement-Jones: Janet, could I come on to the question of relationship with the broadcasters? There is a big difference between your model and ours as they stand in terms of the role of the broadcasters. Here broadcasters make the programmes whereas, as you have explained, you make the programmes and make it available to the broadcasters. Can you say why you think it might not be easier or preferable to have the broadcasters on board in the production process? Are there any pitfalls associated with the rather limited role of the broadcasters as part of your commission model?

Janet Brown: Let me clarify something that I am not 100% sure I have made clear. The commission serves as the sponsor and producer of the debates. The way they are carried is that members of the White House television pool, which is the major networks, basically draw to decide who will cover the conventions and the debates. This is a system that they use for major live events, including the State of the Union. It is logistical as much as anything. It is driven by the fact that obviously you cannot have cameras and equipment representing all the major broadcasters in small spaces like Congress or the debates or venues like that.

When the members of the White House pool draw for coverage of the conventions they also draw for coverage of the debates. That happens sometime in the spring of the election year. What that means is that the commission will go to a debate site and carry out its responsibilities regarding production and sponsorship, which includes building the set, providing the lights, the microphones, the power, everything that you visually see when you turn on one of our debates. The pool network, which will be the one that drew for that particular debate, provides the cameras, the cameramen, the pool truck—which is in the parking lot outside and is taking the feeds from those cameras—and the director, who is the one calling the shots. That is the truck that puts the signal up, which is then taken by other members of the pool or entities that have purchased the right to take the feed.

One of the points that was interesting in your advance documents to me was the editorial discretion that resides with the networks, which is something that we respect enormously, and it continues to reside in the pool model because it is a network executive who is sitting in the director’s chair during the debate. It is the commission’s executive producer who is working with the moderator during the debate. As you can well imagine, this is a live event and you do not want the moderator to be taking direction from multiple people. The reason you choose an independent journalist as the moderator is that they will have the independence to run this debate as they have planned it. As you are probably aware, in our case the moderators alone know the questions and are in charge of the entire proceedings during the debates.

That is the model by which our networks are involved with the actual airing of the debates. That is their function and it is done through the White House pool. It is common that you will have at least three, if not more, members of the White House pool that serve as the pool network for our four debates. It is a rotating function. That is the model by which we do it. We work very closely with the networks because this is a huge responsibility and we want to try to do these in a way that is respectful of their needs, especially during a time of year that is particularly crowded on the network schedule where they have other contractual obligations that they must honour. I am happy to say—and you will hear Bill Wheatley on this subject—that we believe that our relationship with the networks has been one that has been very positive and has worked well through the years.

Lord Clement-Jones: That is very clear indeed. You have a single broadcaster member of the pool for each of the individual debates and you have this production/direction split, which is also extremely clear. Do you ever feel that there are any difficulties about that production/direction split or about the responsiveness of your production values as far as engagement with the public is concerned? Are there any downsides to that split?

Janet Brown: I have to say, Sir, I think it works quite well. If the public found this unsatisfactory, if they believed that we had a thumb on the scale, they would vote with their remotes. They would turn these off and would find them untrustworthy. As you emphasise, it is a terribly important relationship, probably unlike any other. There are no contracts. This is something that we work on together as teammates and, to be completely honest, honour and trust need to be paramount.

Lord Clement-Jones: Thank you.

Q27 Lord Dubs: You will be aware that in this country the regulatory framework for broadcasting is rather different from that in the United States and that our broadcasters are expected to be impartial in the way they put things over. That being the case, would you like to comment on whether the commission model you have would apply in this country or whether our regulatory system suggests we ought to go down a different path?

Janet Brown: I do not feel qualified, Lord Dubs—as much as I tried to study your system—to comment on whether our model would work in the UK. I think that the most important thing that was done when the commission was created, and the best piece of advice I could give anyone else when they take this issue under consideration, is to try to understand that if the objective is to put on a series of fora that educate the public, how is that most efficiently achieved? Can it be done by simply trying to organise discussions between the parties, the media and whoever it is who will be responsible for putting this together? Is it helpful to have a neutral broker that takes on that role and that represents the public’s interest? What is the mechanism that works in the social, political and regulatory environment that exists in one country as opposed to another that will not only work but will be accepted and respected by the public? The thing to remember—and this sometimes surprises our friends in emerging democracies that we work with—is that everything continually conspires to pull these apart, because they are very visible events that take place in the last few weeks of the election. At the end of the day, if someone can find a reason to try to minimise the number of debates or their value because it serves their interest, that is what they will try to do. To be honest, that is a legitimate concern for campaigns or for members of the media or whatever.

It becomes terribly important to try to understand, assuming that one thinks there is educational value in these fora, using airtime that is terribly valuable, how that best comes together. How is it most efficient to try to bring these events to pass and once they come to pass that people walk away and say, “That was a good discussion, I learnt something and I hope there will be more”?

Q28 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Ms Brown, obviously you are quite rightly proud of your record in voter education as demonstrated by the exit polls. That is very interesting. You say that the commission has an ongoing goal of educating voters beyond producing and sponsoring the presidential debates. Could you tell us about the activities you undertake in this respect and which are particularly impactful? Also, not disconnected with that, how do you ensure that your activities and judgments are sufficiently transparent, understood and accountable to the US public?

Janet Brown: Lady Healy, what we do around the debates is to try to use them as vehicles not only to educate voters about the candidates, the parties and the issues but particularly to get young people involved in understanding why this matters. One of the things that I do that is a lot of fun is to go around and talk to kids who are in high school, some of whom are eligible to register and vote and some of whom are just getting there. In this country if you are a member of the debate team it is assumed that you are a brainy member of your class who is already understanding the kinds of things that happen in debate, which to other kids may seem a little inaccessible. I like to remind them that as soon as they have tried to persuade a teacher that they need an extension on their term paper or tried to persuade dad that they should have the keys to the car this Saturday, they are debating. They are trying to persuade, they are trying to convince somebody else in a position of authority, or at least meaningfulness, that their position is the one that should prevail. So if you can try to help kids understand that debating is about something that we all do all the time, that the issues the candidates are discussing at every level of elections in this country will matter to them, that the people who are elected will make decisions that will affect them, then you can try to draw them into the process and find a way that they can take ownership of the debates and ancillary activities.

We have purposefully chosen to go to college and university campuses to do these debates. The ripple effect that the debates have in the communities are just extraordinary in terms of not only the curricular editions that the universities add to their own programmes and the speakers and similar one-off events, but then the work that they do within the county and the state to involve kids at a lower grade level in understanding why this is important—it is truly inspiring. We try to do many of those kinds of activities, not only around the presidential debates but also, for instance, this year, when there is a mid-term election where all members of the United States House are up for election, as are one third of our Senate, and there are a lot of mayor and governor races. We get a lot of inquiries from the sponsors of the debates that will be going on in these races to understand how they can maximise the educational value of this. It is very hard to quantify the impact of that, but I can tell you that there is very little downtime at the commission, given the inquiries that have to do with how you try to use these events in a way that will make people feel as though they belong to the public, and particularly to younger members of the public who should feel as though this matters to them too.

Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Thank you very much. That is very helpful.

Q29 Lord Razzall: You may well have answered already, in your reply to Lord Dubs, the question that I wanted to ask, but perhaps I can press you a little bit on the differences. To some extent we are in a situation of two countries divided by a common language here because, as Lord Dubs indicated, we have a very different regulatory framework here for broadcasts. Given that we have explained that and obviously, as you rightly said, you perhaps do not know quite enough about our structure or would not wish to be an expert—although I think you are doing pretty well—your educational point we would, I suspect, say is dealt with by the way our broadcasts were dealt with last time, which of course was the first time. I think there is polling evidence that more young people voted as a result of watching those debates than would have done otherwise. We are in a 1961 situation here in that it is not yet decided whether or not there are going to be any further debates, so we are where you were all that time ago. Having heard what we have had to say, would you feel that it would be better for us to have a third-party commission on the lines that you have described to us rather than the way we run our debates? I know it is a hard question. You answered Lord Dubs that you perhaps did not know enough about our regulatory framework to judge, but what is your feeling, having heard what we had to say?

Janet Brown: There is much to commend having an objective, neutral, independent debate-sponsoring organisation. It certainly can look different than ours does, but I do think that if you step away from the commission’s model and you bear in mind the objective of debates, which is to educate the public, then in most environments it is possible to conceive of an entity that can be put together—perhaps built on something that already exists or perhaps from scratch—that can serve this function and facilitate bringing the other groups to the table. If I am right, there are at least two Members of your Committee that have extensive journalism experience and I think that they would be able, better than I, to understand how it is possible to meet the sensibilities of the media whose job it is to cover these events. Obviously all of you are in the business of public policy and politics and can understand the sensitivities of the parties and the candidates. It becomes easier to find how to bring these events about if you have an entity that can serve as the broker for these other totally legitimate, competing interests.

Lord Razzall: The three major free-to-air channels got together and made a proposal to the three main parties as to how the debate should be run. There were pretty heavy negotiations going on between the three main parties and the broadcasters as to the criteria and the rules for the debate. That is what happened with us last time and I think the three main free-to air-channels did operate as one in those discussions. One broadcaster did not try to pick another broadcaster off in the way that their debate was going to be shown. So in a way that function that you provide was provided by a collective agreement between the three main free-to-air channels. Whether that would happen again, who knows?

Q30 The Chairman: I see from the clock that the time is running on so we are drawing to a close, but before we finally do I would like to ask you three slightly disparate but nevertheless connected questions that arise from what is being said and what you have kindly told us. First, do you think it is conceivable in your country that you could have a presidential election without a series of election debates? Secondly, one of the points that has been put to us in the particular context of our system is about who takes the decision about which candidates might appear. We have three or four parties whose leaders will be making a pitch to appear in the potential prime ministerial debates. Do you think that being on the television, being included in the debates to some extent, is a precondition of being able to get the support that is necessary? I think in your country Ross Perot appeared in some of the debates some years ago but otherwise it has been the Democrats and the Republicans. Finally, am I right in assuming from what you have told us that in terms of running these debates successfully, regardless of what structure may surround their being put on, what is absolutely important above everything else is the fact that they are perceived as being honest, honourable and trustworthy?

Janet Brown: In answer to the first question, Mr Chairman, I think absent an extraordinary national security crisis or something similar, it is hard to envision circumstances in which no debates would take place during a general election period here.

In terms of the argument that candidates must be included in order to get the kind of support that is necessary to be elected, that is an argument that we hear frequently here, that absent television time one cannot get the kind of public support that makes for a viable candidacy. In the United States in any given general election year there are roughly 160 people that register with the Federal Election Commission as candidates for President or Vice-President of the United States and a number of them believe that if they could get significant television time they would in fact have strong, viable candidacies. What is very clear is that, when you are a matter of weeks away from the election, what the public want to see is the small number of candidates from whom the next President will be chosen. Indeed, as you saw in 1980 in this country, when former Congressman Anderson was included as an independent candidate in the first debate, Mr Carter, then the incumbent President, declined to participate so that it was only his challenger, then Governor Reagan, who was in the debate with Anderson and they did not in fact have the incumbent. Mr Anderson was not included in the second debate, which featured the incumbent and his challenger. We did include Mr Perot in 1992, as you mentioned.

It is an extremely difficult issue and there are suggestions that perhaps there be fora earlier in the general election process, whether it is in this country or other places, that could include more of the independent and third-party candidates whose views would be aired at an earlier time during the election and give the public a chance to hear from those people. That is a separate question. That is not one that we are chartered to be responsible for.

I am sorry, I am not sure I heard the end of the third question.

The Chairman: The point I was putting to you was that, if you are going to have debates that are important in the presidential or general election campaign, the most important thing of all is that they are perceived by the public as being honest, honourable and trustworthy and that this is more important than the mechanics of how to put it together.

Janet Brown: Yes. Obviously if you put the debates together and the mechanics fail then you have dropped the ball. Perhaps the best example, without pointing any fingers, is that in 1976 in one of the Ford-Carter debates in Philadelphia there was a 27-minute silence when the power failed. That is obviously something that keeps production crews awake at night. It is the reason we have triple redundancy on every component that goes into the debate hall. That was a very bad situation that needless to say not only did not serve the public well but left the candidates—you can imagine, all of you, how painful it is to think about—standing in silence on a stage in front of millions of viewers for 27 minutes wondering what was going on.

So the mechanics of course are critical because you do not want to take 90-minute blocks of airtime during prime time a matter of weeks before an election and squander them. That is just wrong. But assuming that you can ensure the soundness of the production, the seriousness of the discussion, then I believe that the neutrality and fairness of the sponsoring organisation, the equal hand of the moderator in terms of asking questions that are not only fair but totally substantive and designed to focus attention on the candidates and not on the moderator, are central to walking away from these fora and feeling as though you have served the public, that you have done a respectable and dignified job in making sure that events that are unlike anything else that takes place during the general election were A-plus and that people will look back on those nights and say, “That was helpful”.

Q31 The Chairman: All I can say is I would like to think that the mechanics of this session have been in line with what you have just described. I am glad that nobody has been left with a blank screen for 25 or 45 minutes, whatever it was. A very big thank you for that. Finally, is there anything you would like to say to us that we have not touched on and you feel is important?

Janet Brown: I would like to say thank you. It is a great honour to talk to your group. We are very proud of what we do here and it is a particular honour to be talking to your group, representative of your Government. We are very grateful to be included in your inquiry. I would like to say that there are so many questions in the debate business that I wish somebody had been able to answer for us when we started the commission. It took a lot of aspirin and other remedies. If there is any way as you go forward that we can answer questions of any kind we would be privileged to do so.

The Chairman: You have been extremely kind and helpful. I am sure I am speaking for every Member of the Committee in the House of Lords here to say thank you very much indeed for what you have told us. We are most grateful. Thank you.

Examination of Witness

Professor William Wheatley, Jr, Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University, and former Executive Vice-President of NBC News

Q32 The Chairman: Is that Professor Wheatley?

Professor Wheatley: It is, indeed.

The Chairman: Good. I now can hear you but I cannot see you any more. Previously I could see you but could not hear you. My name is Richard Inglewood. I am Chairman of this Committee of the House of Lords in England. Welcome to our evidence session and a very big thank you for agreeing to speak to us. The meeting itself is being broadcast and a transcript is being taken of what you say and what we ask you. When we get into the evidence session proper, please mention your name and explain who you are in your opening remark. If you would like to make an opening statement, that would be entirely in line with our thinking, but it is up to you.

As you probably know, we have just heard from Janet Brown. I am sure I do not have to give any description of her to you. She is clearly in favour of the idea of some sort of model to oversee the leaders’ debates here and sees some merit in importing that idea into our arrangements in this country. Perhaps I could start by asking in general terms whether you think there are merits in the commission model from which we can learn here in this country. Do you think there is anything in particular that is important to us, such as debates on a secure footing or voter education?

Professor Wheatley: Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee, for permitting me to give evidence today. I have a very short opening statement. After many years of observing, covering and being involved in the production of televised election debates, I believe that they have come to serve an important, indeed necessary, role in modern elections. They permit large audiences to observe the candidates close up, hearing unfiltered their positions on the issues, seeing how they think on their feet and how they deal with the other candidates, the moderator and the public. They help create a national conversation on the future, which is what elections should be mostly about. They underscore the importance of elections, making it more likely, I believe, that citizens will go to the polls and exercise their sacred right to determine who represents them.

For all these reasons and more, I applaud the Committee for exploring ways in which leadership debates might become a regular part of British elections, the way they have in American elections. While the American way of conducting election debates has produced good results generally, it has its flaws and I am not here to argue that the UK should necessarily go the way of the US. Every situation is different and when it comes to debates each country must do what works best for it, but I am delighted to have the opportunity to help in a small way as you work your way through determining what works best for you.

You asked about the merits of the commission model. I believe that having an organisation with the mission of organising the debates each cycle has helped to ensure that presidential debates are held and, importantly, that there are likely to be more than one. The public has come to expect that there will be multiple debates, making it more difficult for candidates, especially those ahead in the polls, to try to avoid them. While I do not think we are quite at the point where we can conclude that presidential debates are now guaranteed every four years, the presence of the commission has made debates far more likely to occur than they were a generation ago. Having a commission makes it somewhat easier to introduce formats that are designed to elicit unrehearsed answers and free-flowing discussions, the kind that can prove more informative than a mere recitation of memorised talking points. A commission is able to lobby publicly for such formats. In America the CPD, with some pushing from its critics, has gradually improved debate formats, although in my opinion there remains room for further advances.

The Chairman: Do you think that in reality it is likely that there would not be debates in your country in the future?

Professor Wheatley: I think that is most unlikely to happen. The debates are now institutionalised. The public expect them. It would be an extremely risky matter for a candidate to avoid the debates. I think the public would not be pleased by that.

The Chairman: Thank you. That is very interesting.

Q33 Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Thank you for giving evidence to us, Professor Wheatley. Do you have any reservations about the extent to which independence from political or partisan influence can be secured under the arrangements you currently have for the commission: its funding and organisational structure? We have had written evidence that, given the political interests of its two chairmen, the commission would probably be more accurately described as bipartisan rather than non-partisan. Would you help by commenting on whether its political influences arguably have some impact on the way the commission designs the criteria on which candidates are eligible to participate? I wanted to know your thoughts on all that.

Professor Wheatley: As you know, the commission in the United States was created by the Republican and Democratic parties. It is chaired by former operatives of those parties. While the leaders of the commission are certainly responsible people, it would be a leap of faith to believe that partisan considerations do not play some role in the commission’s deliberations. There is also the fact that representatives of the candidates negotiate in secret certain rules of the debates and sign a contract committing to them and asking the commission to enforce them. Even though the commissioners occasionally push back on some parts of these contracts, the very existence of the contracts makes it hard for the commission to support its claim that it is independent of the parties: that it is non-partisan rather than bipartisan.

There are some other considerations in this regard. It is important to remember that a portion of the considerable expenses of the commission is paid for by corporate donors who have business before the government and, by extension, before members of the political parties. This is a further example of the role of big money in Washington politics. Along these lines, it is worth noting that the commission’s present co-chairmen are themselves paid lobbyists whose business it is to try to win favour from the elected officials of the two parties.

What does this all add up to? While I believe that in general the commission has done a responsible job of overseeing the debates, I believe that it nevertheless tends to favour the status quo and has been somewhat slow to reform formats, reluctant to choose moderators who can be counted on to ask pointed questions, and a little tepid about using digital technology to further involve the public.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Bearing in mind these quite frank criticisms and understanding that we are starting to look at this ourselves, what would your recommendations be as to how to avoid some of those flaws that you have just identified? Understanding the historical basis from which the commission was created, if you were starting again how would you do it? What, if anything, would you change?

Professor Wheatley: It would be wise if you are going to have a commission to have a commission that is truly non-partisan, that is led by people who do not have a close connection to the political parties, perhaps outstanding people in civic life in general. I fear also that not only the leadership but the board of directors needs to be as non-partisan as possible. If I were starting a commission I would probably want to include members of the broadcast community and some membership, obviously, from the political parties, but still overall to be led and have standards that would be in the range of what we call good-government organisations of the United States.

The Chairman: Am I right in saying—if I could possibly paraphrase what you were saying to us—that you have an anxiety that the commission is too close to the political establishment, using those words in a very general sense?

Professor Wheatley: That is true. You cannot take away the fact that it is led by people who were formerly major players in the Republican and Democratic parties respectively. They in turn are involved in selecting the rest of the members of the commission. In my opinion they are less likely to be aggressive about ensuring that the debates do not simply protect the status quo.

Q34 Lord Clement-Jones: Professor, I wonder if we could explore the question of the role of broadcasters in the current system that you have. We heard from Janet Brown just a few moments ago about the split between production and direction, that a rotating pool does the direction for each debate but the production, the set, the format and the choice of moderator are very much the commission’s responsibility. Do you think that the broadcasters in your system should have a greater role and perhaps even have a seat at the table with the commission? In answering that, could you tell us a little about your experience of working with the commission at NBC? As a broadcaster, would your instincts be different from those of the commission as to the way in which the programmes are formatted? You have already mentioned that you think there is an inherent conservatism about the way the programme is formatted.

Finally, do you think there is some merit in our system, where there is some creative tension, where the debates are organised between the parties and the broadcasters? We rotate them around the broadcasters but, subject to a set of rules, the individual broadcasters do the production and the direction under one roof.

Professor Wheatley: Surely. In all honesty, I have mixed feelings about the role of broadcasters in debates. While generally I believe that journalism organisations should cover events not participate in them, broadcast journalists are trained to ask questions and are skilled at moderating televised proceedings. For these reasons I favour a role for the broadcasters beyond simply aiming the cameras and having their moderators act as traffic cops, more or less, for the candidates.

Some background might be interesting here. In 1992 network officials, including me, from the four major American networks doing news proposed to the commission that we work together to stage the debates. We proposed that there be four debates—three presidential and one vice-presidential—held in network studios in four geographically diverse cities and that each of the four networks have responsibility for producing one of the debates, providing an anchor who would question the candidates in a free-flowing format. We argued that there was no need to raise money to stage debates in huge halls on college campuses, no need to have large on-site audiences composed in part of party loyalists and corporate sponsors, no need to arrange for large blocks of hotel rooms and so on. The talks proved interesting and we seemed to be making some progress, but then the commission said that it had decided to go its own way and one network dropped out of the coalition. In the end the commission ran the 1992 debates.

In 2004, my network, NBC, offered the candidates the opportunity to have a debate separate from the ones that the commission had announced it would hold. The Republicans agreed but the Democrats did not. We, the NBC and the Republicans were accused of undermining the commission and threatening the traditional airing of debates on all major networks simultaneously. In the end the matter was dropped and the commission once again organised all the debates, as it has since then.

I have no issue with the political parties and broadcasters negotiating the terms of debates as was done in Britain in 2010 and is done regularly in the presidential primary debates in America. I do worry, however, that such an approach may mean that every time there was a British election, the process would start anew with the possibility that one or more parties would decide not to debate. While this remains possible in America too, the debates here have over the years become such a key part of the election process that a candidate who tries to avoid them does so at his or her considerable political peril.

Lord Clement-Jones: That is very interesting. Are you saying that as a broadcaster you took that view—and obviously you were prepared to put forward a separate debate—but on mature reflection you think that the commission as a body in a sense is a useful guarantor that these debates in a particular way will go forward for the future in the United States?

Professor Wheatley: Yes, I do. But I should point out that broadcasters could also be a useful guarantor in that regard.

Lord Clement-Jones: Where do you sit now in terms of broadcasters sitting on the commission? You would not have them on the commission but the commission has to consult them closely as part of the process. Where do you think they fit most comfortably?

Professor Wheatley: The commission does consult broadcasters carefully as part of the process but it does not permit the broadcasters to exert editorial leadership for the debates. As for the networks in America sitting on the commission, I would still be opposed to that simply because I continue to believe that the commission is in some ways beholden to the Republican and Democratic parties and I do not think it appropriate that a journalism organisation should be too close to that situation.

Lord Clement-Jones: But just to press you a little, there was the criticism that there was no Latino moderator, for instance, at the last round of debates. How do you overcome some of the conservatism in formats and so on that you have mentioned, and indeed in the choice of moderator?

Professor Wheatley: I have come to believe that the best formats are those that are somewhat less structured than the ones we have had to date, formats that permit a free flow of dialogue among the candidates and that permit the moderator to interject, not only to be a traffic cop but also to pose follow-up questions and so on. To the commission’s credit, in the last round of debates it made some progress along those lines.

To answer your question about minority representation in the debates, I see no reason why minorities cannot be represented in the moderator corps. They are already represented in terms of the audience and the way that is selected demographically.

Q35 Baroness Fookes: In the course of your remarks, Professor, you referred to contracts being made by the participants. I was not quite clear about this. Could you expand on that?

Professor Wheatley: Yes. In each election cycle Republican and Democratic representatives sit down and work out certain terms of the debate for both its organisation and the way it is conducted. I should tell you that those contracts have not generally been shared with the public. As it transpired, in 2012 a copy of the agreement was leaked to a member of the press, who promptly published it, and it is a contract that in 2012 ran to, I believe, 21 pages. It deals with all manner of arrangements, such as where the candidates would stand or be seated, whether there would be follow-up questions permitted by the moderator, how many tickets would be reserved for each of the parties, and so on. It is a document that they negotiate, sign and present to the commission. The commission argues—and I think fairly so—that it is not bound by that contract and that it is free to ignore those terms, but I have to say that many of those terms are in fact reflected in the debates.

Baroness Fookes: Do those terms in any way inhibit the role of the moderator?

Professor Wheatley: They have, particularly in terms of the ability to ask follow-up questions.

Q36 The Chairman: Professor, do you think that the way it is structured in practice means that it is difficult, indeed well nigh impossible, for a third-party candidate to become a real contender because of the way it appears that these contracts are done between the Republicans and Democrats?

Professor Wheatley: The contracts do not provide that no one else can participate in the debate. Indeed, as I believe you know, the commission had adopted a numerical formula for the inclusion of third-party candidates. First of all, the candidate would need to be on the ballot in enough states to comprise 270 electoral votes—the number you need to be elected President. Then they would need also to have a standing of approximately 15% in a basketful of public opinion polls. Some argue that that is too high a standard for the inclusion of a third-party candidate but I am glad they do have a standard. Some say that the standard should be 10%, even 5%. Critics argue that because the debates are pretty much limited to the two major parties, various ideas that might be relevant to the discussion do not get heard. It is a thorny and difficult issue. I do believe that the commission has addressed it. On the other hand, I believe that it should be open to further discussion on whether the formula is right.

Q37 Earl of Selborne: Professor, you have told us that you think that the commission in some respects could be restructured with advantage and that it is possible that political parties, or indeed others, might exert an undue influence in some respects. I can see that if we adopted that model in this country our broadcasters would not be willing to concede editorial independence to any organisation, let alone one with commissioners who could be seen to be partisan, even if from different sides. They would say that they are required to uphold impartiality by our regulatory framework. They would, quite frankly, have more confidence that they could deliver this impartiality than the commission. How would you respond to that?

Professor Wheatley: In the UK broadcasters are legally required to practise impartiality. In the US they are not legally bound to do so. The fact is that the majority of American broadcasters, as a matter of professional ethics, strive to be impartial. Yes, we have ideological channels—Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left—but they are not likely to get presidential debates as the Democrats would almost certainly object to a debate run by Fox News and Republicans to one run by MSNBC. The presidential debates in America have a long history of being moderated by fair, professional journalists. The public expect it and I believe would react negatively and strongly to the introduction of clearly biased moderators. The commission of course has always taken pains to appoint moderators who will conduct debates with impartiality. But I believe that if the networks ran them they would too, even without regulatory oversight.

Earl of Selborne: Do you think that broadcasters with the suitable regulatory framework could indeed deliver the impartiality that they would maintain in this country they are used to doing and are capable of doing and would expect to do?

Professor Wheatley: I have great faith in both British and American television journalists and I feel that both groups could be counted on to conduct the debate fairly.

Q38 Lord Dubs: Could you say a little more about how the US public see the commission’s activities? Do you believe the commission’s activities and judgments are sufficiently transparent, understood and accountable to the public? Is there anything else that you feel you might be doing in this area?

Professor Wheatley: I do not believe that the public necessarily have a view on the Commission on Presidential Debates. It is not an organisation that is particularly well known, and that is perhaps understandable. My view—and I am sure the commission has research to indicate this—is that generally speaking the American public feel that debates are fairly held and moderated. Having said that, I do believe that our commission could have additional transparency. We have talked about those secret contracts between the parties that are presented to the commission. I would certainly like to see the commission release those to the general public so they could observe them. I would like the commission to give additional details about its relationship with its corporate sponsors so the public could see what privileges they get. I would like the commission to reveal the terms of its financial arrangements with the colleges and universities that play host to the debates and pay financially for that privilege. On such an important civic matter as the debates, I think the public deserve to know all of these things.

Q39 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Professor, you have spoken clearly on both the advantages and disadvantages, but taking everything into account, what would your advice be to us? Should the UK adopt a third-party-commission model in the way it operates and runs broadcasts on general election debates?

Professor Wheatley: Not being a British subject, I am somewhat reluctant to offer you advice, but I would urge you in your deliberations to keep the focus on what structure will make for the most informative debates conducted in the fairest manner, and then how that structure will enhance the possibility that leadership debates will become a permanent part of British elections. The political parties need to be key parts of the process by which debates are designed and held, but I hope that you find a way to involve them while not permitting them to control it. Their interests in such matters are not always the same as the public’s.

Were you to adopt the commission model or turn the responsibility for debates over to a civic organisation, I would suggest that the emerging organisation be truly non-partisan, not a creation of the political parties as it is in the US. I would be sure that its leadership is composed of people of accomplishment and integrity and that its board membership reflects those values as well. I would recommend that it be funded in a way that avoids donations from those who have business before the Government or who are close to the political parties.

As for the conduct of the debates, I would continue to make sure that the public get to ask questions, as they did in 2010. But I would also give the moderator leeway to ask questions of his or her own, particularly when a question from a member of the public demands follow-up.

I would come up with a numerical formula, as we have in America, for the inclusion of additional parties when they have become an important part of the national debate and have some electoral prospects.

Q40 The Chairman: In the session with Janet Brown before this session with you, she mentioned that coverage could be given to some of the smaller third parties in the general election, not in the debate as such but outside it. Of course, she said, it was not her responsibility to do that. Do you think that is an important point: that in the presidential election as a whole, more coverage should be given to some of the smaller parties, not necessarily through the debates as such but by the media, for the benefit of the electorate?

Professor Wheatley: I do think that we do not hear enough from the smaller parties, both in the media print media and broadcast journalism. I said earlier that I believe that ideas from some of the smaller parties often have relevance to the national political debate. The devil is in the details: organising debates or appearances that would give smaller parties greater access to the public. It is something that I believe is worth looking at carefully. I would say this: when you have a third-party candidate who is beginning to show substantial progress in awareness and support in the public, it is important that that person be permitted entry into the debates. We had this in 1992 with Ross Perot. Once again the devil is in the detail: what threshold there should be for such a third-party candidate to enter the debates. The commission has come up with a threshold. I mentioned that some believe it is too high, but you know your thoughts, and I know there is considerable debate in Britain about this. I guess I would err on the side of permitting someone into the debate rather than not if that person had substantial support, but you would have to work out what level is required.

The Chairman: The mechanics of identifying substantial support are quite difficult because it can be mechanistic or it can rely on judgment, and it is not straightforward at all, is it?

Professor Wheatley: It is not and in the United States we have had experience in both mechanistic and indeed arcane ways of making those decisions, but I think you have to try. All you can do is try to be fair. There will always be people who are disappointed. It seems to me that before you let someone into a debate, he or she has to have the potential to win the election. In your country I guess that would mean substantial support in enough constituencies to win control. But your system is not the same as ours and it may be difficult in Britain to come up with such a formula.

Q41 The Chairman: Professor, time is moving on and I think we are more or less at the end of the time you have kindly allocated to us. Other than my saying thank you very much from everyone involved here for what you have been telling us, is there anything you feel you would like to say that we have not covered in the discussion?

Professor Wheatley: No. I think you have asked the questions that one could reasonably ask. I would like to thank you for giving me a chance to participate and to wish the Committee well as it goes about its business. I know it is not an easy task but it is an important one. If I may be of any further help to your Committee at any time, please do not hesitate to call on me.

The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. We are very grateful for having heard what you have to tell us. Thank you.

Examination of Witness

Professor Alan Schroeder, School of Journalism, Northeastern University

Q42 The Chairman: Is that Professor Schroeder?

Professor Schroeder: Yes.

The Chairman: It is? Good. Welcome.

Professor Schroeder: Thank you.

The Chairman: I am very glad we managed to get through. It is good of you to come and talk to us. We are very grateful for that. The meeting is being broadcast and a transcript is going to be taken. When I ask you the opening question, perhaps you could preface your remarks by saying who you are for the record. If you want to make an opening statement ahead of the question and answer session, we would be very happy if you did. It is over to you on that count.

Professor Schroeder: My name is Alan Schroeder and I am a Professor in the School of Journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. I have to apologise for my voice. I am suffering from laryngitis. I feel perfectly fine, but I hope you can hear me and if you cannot I will hold the microphone a bit closer. I am the author of a couple of books on presidential debates here in the United States. I have written and lectured about electoral debates around the world. I am also a former television producer, so I come at it slightly from that perspective as well.

I do not have an opening statement per se, but I will just preface my remarks very quickly by saying that I think this is a very important topic. I think you are absolutely on the right track in pursuing this question of debate sponsorship. I analogise electoral debates to job interviews and I think, as such, it is extremely important that the public have a seat at the table in the planning and execution of the debates and that the debates belong to the public rather than to any of the other constituencies.

It is quite vital that we have these conversations and I hope that, in spite of the horror of my larynx today, I am able to bring something to the table for you here. Fire away.

Q43 The Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. I just hope we are not going to put your larynx under too much pressure and if we seem to, please say so.

I think you may have been following some of the session online but, in any event, we have been hearing from Janet Brown and Bill Wheatley and I expect you know their views pretty clearly. We would like to start by asking: is there anything you would like to add to what you would have expected them to say about the positive lessons that we can perhaps learn in this country from the United States experience? In particular, what do you think the commission model has to teach us here in the UK?

Professor Schroeder: On the whole, the commission model has been extremely successful. As I look at the debates that have been held in about 75 countries around the world with all manner of sponsorship, this seems to be, if not the most effective, certainly one of the most effective ways to organise, plan and execute debates.

In addition to what Janet said, I think one of the advantages here is that it is good, when you have a series of debates, to conceive of them as an organic series, not as a group of individual one-offs but rather to look at them organically as an ongoing conversation. I think it is easier to do that under the auspices of a commission model, even something as basic and as simple as the visual look of the debates. As I watched the three debates from 2010 in the UK, each of them was so different in appearance and, even though the format was the same, I think there was not a great deal of thematic consistency.

Also, a single sponsor gives you the ability to introduce more diversity into the moderating of the debates. For your three debates in 2010 you had three white male journalists. There is nothing wrong with that—I am a white male journalist myself—but I do think there is some value in bringing diversity of voices into the moderating process. It may be easier to do that when you are conceiving of these things in group form as opposed to individually.

I think another advantage in commission sponsorship is that the commission can take a lot of the heat for all of the things that come up. Debates become very controversial: the planning, the sponsorship and the execution. If you have a central place for all of those concerns to be expressed and dealt with, that is not a bad thing. As has probably been mentioned, a commission or an independent sponsor gives you the ability to play the role of arbiter in deciding who belongs in the debates and in establishing standards like who decides how people are included in the debates. I think there is that as well.

I would also make the point that I think we need to take the long view of debates. Yes, they are extraordinarily important at the moment and in the context in which they take place, but they are also historic documents that have an afterlife. Almost 60 years after Kennedy and Nixon we are still talking about them. We are still learning from their lessons. One of the advantages of a debates commission is the ability to act as a central repository for all of the debates from history and the educational component of those.

For instance, the debates commission in the United States maintains a wonderful website that you can just pop on and look at any of the debates from any of the years. There is a lot of ancillary educational information. I find, as a professor, that in these wider debates there is a great deal of interest on the part of the public and particularly on the part of students who want to learn about the history of debates and the history of what has happened in these debates. You need get that history up for people and I think an independent commission has a vested interest in the afterlife of debates.

I do not want to dwell too heavily on this point but just as a little example of what I am talking about, I logged on last night to review the UK debates. I very easily found two of them but the third one I could not find at all. I am sure if I had spent more time I could have, or I could at least have found excerpts, but I do think there is some value in considering the debates as an organic series of things that takes place not only in the moment, in the election year in which they are taking place, but in a greater, broader historical context for the generations that follow and for the students who are going to be writing their papers and wanting to learn more about these things 20, 30 or 40 years hence. That is how I would respond to the question about the pros of an independent commission.

Q44 The Chairman: What you have been telling us is very interesting. Just to be absolutely clear, you think that a shortcoming of the debates in this country in the last general election is that they were too homogenous, too similar to each other. You think they should have been pitched in a rather more differentiated way.

Professor Schroeder: I do, and I think too homogenous in the format as well. I know the history of this, that that is a function primarily of the timing and the fact that there was not a great deal of room for manoeuvre, this having been the first time and so on, but I think that viewers and voters learn different things from different formats. It strikes me that the ideal is a combination of different formats that might open the window in a slightly different way in each case, allowing voters to learn things and see things that the same format replicated or run over again might not provide.

Similarly, there should be a diversity of questioners, whether that be journalists or members of the audience. You get different kinds of questions from different kinds of interrogators and I think it is valuable for the politicians to have to deal with things coming at them from a lot of different directions in a lot of different ways. Yes, a diversity of formats and a diversity of questioners. It seems to me the more variety, the more informational value the debates can have.

The Chairman: Thank you. That is very interesting.

Q45 Baroness Fookes: Professor, could I effectively reverse the original question that you were asked? Do you see any drawbacks or reservations about the commission model in the US being applied in the UK?

Professor Schroeder: I do think that the commission in the United States made an enormous mistake by initially calling themselves a bipartisan commission and by identifying themselves so closely, as they did, with the political parties. Of course, as was explained, I am sure they are now a non-partisan commission, but they paid the price for 25 years for having originally been a bipartisan commission. There is a great deal of confusion even now on the part of journalists who write about debates. There is a great deal of confusion on the part of the public who still view debates as a creature of the political parties.

Back to my original point that debates belong to the people, you ought to be in no doubt whatsoever that the integrity of these debates is as full and 100% as it can be and, therefore, distancing them from the parties to the extent possible is important. Another potential drawback is that the broadcasters, by definition, have to be involved anyway and, as Janet undoubtedly explained, in the relationship between the debates commission and the American television networks, the American television networks ultimately are the ones who come in in the technical piece of this. I suppose there is an argument that could be made that would say: why do you need a middleman? You just go directly to the broadcasters. They stage the debates. They produce them and you do not have this middleman standing between the programme and the producers of the programme.

Another potential drawback is the question of funding, as Professor Wheatley just talked about a little bit. There has been perhaps a little less transparency on that point than there ought to be. Debates are expensive. Someone has to pay for them. Who does pay for them? If the broadcasters are doing it, they are the ones who are footing the bill but, in the absence of that, you are left with the commission that has to go around with its little tin cup soliciting donations, and that can be a tricky business and it can raise questions.

Having said that, I should add that I do not think there has ever been any impropriety in the relationship between the funders and the debates themselves. Certainly I do not think you can make an argument that just because Anheuser-Busch, America’s largest brewery, is a sponsor of the debates, that in any way affects the outcome of the debates. There may not be any correlation but the point remains that the debates must be funded and so an independent commission requires that in a way that the broadcasters would not.

The last point I would make is that the Commission on Presidential Debates, as wonderful as it is at this moment, has had to spend a great deal of time getting to this point. It takes many years to achieve the trust of the public, the press and the politicians and, therefore, the question of institutionalisation is something that is an incremental process that takes a great deal of time. If you are looking at the year 2015, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult for a debates commission to be established and put in place in time for the next series of debates in the United Kingdom. That is something for you to keep in mind as you look at this question of independent sponsorship versus broadcaster sponsorship.

Baroness Fookes: Thank you very much. You certainly tested your larynx with that answer.

Q46 Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill: Professor, we are going to call on your expertise because we know that you have been studying other models. In comparative terms, what do you see to be the merits of the way in which the UK general election debates were set up and run in 2010 compared to alternative models around the world? In particular, what do you think is the role of public expectations? How should they be taken into account? Are they enough, in the absence of institutional compulsion, to ensure that debates do happen around Europe?

Professor Schroeder: Yes. First of all, let me say that I think that broadcasters in the United Kingdom did a remarkably fine job with the 2010 debates. I teach this topic all over the world and I hold the UK 2010 debates up as a role model of how these things can work in an extremely positive way. I think the broadcasters were excellent stewards of the debates and I know that the result could have been quite different. I read the 76 rules and I wrote a column for the Guardian in which I was quite critical of that document. I was very wary of that and did not have great expectations for what would happen, but I think in the event it turned out well and that is a real testament to the broadcasters and also, frankly, to the people in those audiences who asked the questions in a very intelligent way.

Another advantage for the broadcasters is that they know this turf extraordinarily well. This is what they do all the time. They know how to put on television programmes and how to connect with the audience, and I think that is very important. As we look around the world, more often than not it is broadcasters who sponsor the electoral debates at the national level and so there is a lot of experience you can draw upon but it is not all positive experience.

I think too often what happens is that the broadcasters begin to take a bit of a proprietary interest in the debates and they forget that the debates belong to the voting public not to themselves. Therefore, it can become a bit of a promotional vehicle for the broadcasters and, again, I do not think that happened in the UK. I did not get the sense of each broadcaster using it as a way to promote its own ends, but I do think that potential exists and it is something that one must be vigilant against.

Q47 The Chairman: In looking around the world, as you obviously do thinking about these things, can you think of any instances where debates have taken place and which subsequently have not taken place and people are not bothered? Is there an expectation generally, in the world we are living in now where television is omnipresent, that there should be televised debates between the candidates? I am obviously talking about what I call real democracies.

Professor Schroeder: Yes. Some of your question cut out there but I think I caught the gist of it. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is very difficult to get it back in. We have the example in the United States, as was discussed, of the 16-year gap. The other parallel to that is Spain. Spain held its first series of presidential debates in 1993 and, just as in the United States, it was a terrifying experience for the politicians and they avoided having to do it again for another 15 years. So we did not see debates in Spain again until 2008, a gap of a decade and a half, which is a shame.

I hope I do not offend any of you by saying this, but if the politicians had their way they would not debate. It is not a pleasant thing to have to do and nobody wants to have to go into the job interview if you can get the job in spite of the interview. However, the public responds with such enthusiasm and so favourably to debates that there is a great deal of investment on the part of the public. The public, once it is out there, does begin to expect that debates become part of the ritual and part of the election. For instance, here in America I absolutely cannot conceive of a case in which even an incumbent President with a high approval rating could get out of a debate. He may not have to take part in all three of the scheduled debates, but there is absolutely no way that any candidate could do it without severe risk to his or her credibility.

I think this question of institutionalisation is extremely important and, for the United Kingdom, it is extraordinarily important to hold debates in 2015 because once you have done it for a couple of cycles there is no turning back. Once the public gets accustomed to the idea of debates and begins to realise that this is something that is ours and that we can learn from and we win this by virtue of the dramatically high ratings for debates, people respond. People love these things. Even voters who do not care about politics, this is the one moment where they decide, “Well, even though I do not follow the news and I do not care about politics, here is the point where I want to pay attention for 90 minutes or 90 minutes three times. I owe my country this much”. Yes, people are highly invested in it and it is quite important to institutionalise them. Once they are institutionalised the toothpaste cannot be put back into the tube. There you have it.

Q48 Earl of Selborne: Professor, could I take you back again to the United Kingdom 2010 general election debates and, particularly on the lessons learned, what we can learn from that exercise for future years? I think you have already said that you thought there was perhaps a shortage of diversity of questions and formats, that they were too homogenised. You also thought that the broadcasters acquitted themselves well. Would you like to give a general view on any other aspects that you feel we could learn from those debates?

Professor Schroeder: Yes. One of the things that I will identify as a weakness of the UK prime ministerial debates in 2010 has to do with the question of universal access. I can remember being in my hotel room in London the night of the first debate, very excited and flipping around on the different channels expecting to see the debate on every single channel, because that is what I was used to in the United States, yet it was only carried on ITV.

As I began to inquire later and learn about what happened with that, it became a question of each of the individual broadcasters having its proprietary interest in broadcasting its debate and wanting to generate the audience for itself. Believe me, as a former television producer I get that. I understand that, but I do not think it serves the public as well as it could. I was also in France in 2012 for the debates between Sarkozy and Hollande and, although it is not carried on as many different channels, it is a much bigger deal.

I think debate night needs to be a night in which the entire country stops everything else it is doing and sits down and for 90 minutes just pays rapt attention to the debates. Therefore, whoever is staging the debates or sponsoring them needs to facilitate that to the greatest extent possible. In my opinion, the debates should be made available to absolutely anyone who wants to show them, be it radio, tablets, the internet, television and so on. Of course, it is impossible to supplant every other type of programming on television with just debates and you are always going to have people who would rather be watching “I Love Lucy” or something that night, which they can find somewhere.

In the United States, for instance, all of the major broadcasters, cable news networks and public television networks are carrying the debates and that is, in part, what accounts for these extraordinary audiences of 70 million people. It is not just that they do not have the alternative, but they understand that something very important is happening and there is some collective thing that is happening in the country. In our multi-channel universe we do not have very many collective national experiences and the debates have always been that. The largest ratings they ever received were back when Kennedy and Nixon debated and that is because there was literally nothing else on that night, but it also engendered the habit of looking at debates as this thing that you do for your country, that you do with all of your fellow citizens or subjects and that if you do not do it you somehow cannot take part in the national conversation. When you go to work the next morning you are not in on the conversation the way that everyone else is.

I would think that a goal in the future for the British prime ministerial debates is to be as pervasive, as inescapable and as universal in access as they possibly can be so that you almost shame people into watching them. One other point slightly related to that is you obviously have millions of British subjects who live outside the United Kingdom who may or may not be able to see it on the internet, but you need to make it as easy for them as well because, after all, they are voters who are going to be casting a ballot and who need to be able to make informed decisions in their own right. I think this idea of universal access is just something that ought to be pursued as vigorously as you can.

Q49 Earl of Selborne: There was a time when party-political broadcasts in this country were shown on all channels at the same time and there was a great deal of resentment that people had no alternative. Now, of course, there is any number of channels that you can receive and there is no possible way that every channel could cover these debates. Indeed, I imagine that is the case in the States at the moment. Although they are available on most of the main channels, there are plenty of other options. Indeed, I think Janet Brown told us that it was not so easy any more to capture the audience, although the viewing figures were impressive. Do you not accept that there is a contrary argument that people should not be forbidden to watch anything else while debates are going on?

Professor Schroeder: We live in democracies and, of course, everyone should have the freedom of choice to do whatever he or she wants, but I also think it is not asking too much of the public to give up three, three and a half or four hours of time every few years to look at the men and women who lead them. As I say, this is a job interview and we are the boss. Just as I would not hire someone to work for me in a professional capacity without first having done my due diligence, I think this is the due diligence that the public has to undertake.

Of course, you cannot hold a gun to people’s heads and force them to watch it, but by making it so widely available you make it almost something that they end up having to do. They have to eat their peas whether they intended to or not just by virtue of the prevalence and the persistence of those peas, if I can club this analogy to death.

Q50 The Chairman: In the United States where you have this very wide availability of the presidential debates and there are other things people can watch if they want to, have you any idea what percentage of the television-watching public watches the debates as opposed to absolute figures of numbers in terms of millions?

Professor Schroeder: I do not off the top of my head. I can certainly get that information for you. It is a somewhat imprecise science, but off the top of my head I cannot give you that.

Related to this conversation, however, is another interesting facet that has changed even since your debates of 2010 and that is the notion of dual viewership. In 2012 in the US presidential debates we saw for the first time this phenomenon of increasing numbers of people watching on the television screen but also on a mobile device or a pad and monitoring the social media real-time reaction to the debates even as they were watching the debates. I think this is an interesting challenge going forward for those who stage the debates, certainly for the participants in the debates and for the media that covers the debates.

Always before there was the sense that you had to wait until after the debate to have a sense of how things were going and with these new technological developments the reactions are occurring in real time, rapid fire and having implications for the results of the debates, the performances and the way the media cover the debates. Here again is this question of universal access. The more ways in which people can access the debates and the more places they can see the debates, the more I think you are going to see this engagement of the dual-screen phenomenon as a function of debate watching.

Q51 The Chairman: Do you think there is any risk, or indeed possibility, of the political parties getting themselves organised to then effectively issue a tornado of complimentary thinking about their own candidate and abuse and denigration of the other candidate or do you think, in the real world, you cannot rig it like that?

Professor Schroeder: I am sorry, I missed some of the question.

The Chairman: When you have the dual screen and the relationship between the social media and the televised medium, do you think it is possible that the political parties can so organise themselves that they can effectively rig the way people are thinking by having a tornado of comment both for and against different candidates?

Professor Schroeder: Yes. It is a great question. I will give you a specific example. In 2012 Mitt Romney was talking about reducing the size of the US military and made the point that we have X number fewer ships in the Navy today than we had 100 years ago. President Obama came back with a very memorable quip about how that is right but we also have fewer horses and bayonets. That was a line that the Democrats knew the President was going to say. They had their social media people ready to start tweeting at that moment with the hashtag “#horsesandbayonets”. They did so and it caught on. There is potentially manipulation in that regard but, on the other hand, there is a lot of organic reaction.

I will give you another example from 2012 in the US. Mitt Romney talked about wanting to defund public broadcasting and mentioned Big Bird, the character on “Sesame Street”, which instantly and vociferously became this Twitter phenomenon without any manipulation. I should not say without any manipulation. I am sure the Obama people goosed it along, but it was a natural reaction on the part of the audience to hear that and think it was funny or worth commenting on and, therefore, to jump right on it.

Of more concern to me than manipulation by the political parties is the trivialisation of the debates by viewers who get a little bit distracted by the comedic moments or the misstatements or the obviously planted zingers in the debates. If there is a downside to dual-screen viewership it is that it allows viewers to not have their own experience exclusively but rather to be greatly influenced by the experiences of others.

I will say, in relation to that, that journalists were quite guilty, particularly the Washington press corps, of reacting to each other’s Twitter feeds. Mitt Romney was declared the winner of the first 2012 debate within the first half hour of the debate by universal acclaim, meaning the universal acclaim of the Washington press corps. Once that is out there it is very difficult to retract or to overcome it. I think you run the risk of viewers deciding, “This thing is over. The winner has been declared. I do not need to watch any more”, and not have the full breadth and experience of the entirety of the debate.

Q52 Baroness Fookes: You did tell us in written evidence that there is no ideal system, but it always useful to look at good models. Is there a country where we could potentially learn a great deal about improving our own system?

Professor Schroeder: It is very difficult to analogise country to country because of the different electoral systems and legal frameworks. For instance, in reading the testimony of the other witnesses before this panel, I was struck by the sheer complexity of British communications law. I am glad I do not have to know any more about it than I do. I think it is very hard to take one country’s debate experience and attempt to apply it to another.

Just looking at countries like Canada and Australia that do have similar electoral systems to the UK, Canada has had a great deal more success in debates with its consortium of national media that are the sponsors of the debates and that seem to have figured out a fairly effective way to stage the debates. They are not the liveliest debates that we could think of as we go around the world certainly and Canada is not a country of the same size or, dare I say, stature as the United Kingdom. I am not sure there is a 100% correlation, but you might look a little more closely at Canada as an example of a country that has been doing debates since the 1970s with success and it seems to have figured a way to balance the various interests involved.

As a negative role model, you might look at Australia. Nothing against it, it is a wonderful country, but in terms of the debates sponsorship what has happened, it seems to me, is that the political parties have used their power to play the broadcasters off each other to find the best deal they can and the most favourable formats for themselves. There has not been a consistent application of a sponsorship structure or model that works in a way that has benefited the voting public in Australia. Therefore, you have, in the English-speaking world, a positive and negative example.

In terms of looking at formats, New Zealand has come up with some very interesting format ideas. One of the things that they did—I believe this was in 2008—was a debate among primary candidates that was conducted entirely via questions submitted on YouTube. One of the advantages of that was that a fairly large percentage of the New Zealand electorate lives outside of New Zealand and so they were very careful to integrate questions from New Zealanders living in the exterior into that debate and make sure that those points of view were being represented.

Finally, I would say that I do think the United States debates commission model has a lot of positive application for the United Kingdom and for other countries in spite of some of the problems that we have talked about. On the whole it has been successful and I think they have recognised very seriously who their constituency is and that they are serving as the voice of the people here. Furthermore, I think their voter education efforts, both within the United States and around the world, have been quite helpful in this.

I look at small countries, particularly emerging democracies around the world, who are staging debates for the first time. It makes me feel good that we have something in the United States that we have been able to export and that is a positive role model for countries around the world. I think the UK, as one of the world’s leading countries with such a long tradition of democracy and with such a history of reaching out to the world in so many different ways, has an opportunity here to use your debates not just as a means to an end domestically but as role models for the rest of the world. The debates that were conducted in 2010 stand in that capacity very strongly as something that other countries ought to be looking at and emulating as a positive way of holding these exercises that have become, to an increasing degree, a ratification of democracy around the world.

Q53 The Chairman: That is interesting. You did touch on other European Union countries. Are there any there that you think one should either emulate or be cautious about?

Professor Schroeder: Sure. Let us do a positive and a negative. Positive: France. I am a big fan of their format. It gets a little ridiculous on one point and that is that they are absolutely hell bent on each of the two candidates receiving precisely the same amount of time. What happens is that at what should be the end of the debate, candidate A wants to say one more thing and so candidate B has to say one more thing of equal length, and suddenly it is 1.00 am and they are still talking. Apart from that, it is a format that is extraordinarily successful because it is a direct engagement just between the two candidates with very little moderation. That said, I go back to my previous point. I do think there is value in a variety of formats and what is missing from the French experience is the voice of the French people. I think there could be improvements in that regard.

On the negative role model side, I would offer the example of Germany. The German Chancellor debates are sponsored by a consortium of the major German television networks and what happens is that each of those television networks has a representative in each of the debates. It is a panel of journalists asking questions and you just go down the line with each journalist asking his or her question. It becomes this very stilted, rigorously observed structure in which there is very little opportunity for give and take and in which the end result seems to be showcasing the journalists from the various television networks as much as eliciting information and voter enlightenment. I would hold that up as something to be cautious of.

Q54 Baroness Fookes: Could I just ask about timing? You spoke about the French going on and on. Is there an ideal time? You mentioned the 90 minutes. Do you think that is about right?

Professor Schroeder: I do, and I base that on what I see as the audience’s tolerance for these things but also we so often forget the human dimension here. These are candidates who are being asked to perform at extremely high capacity, under pressure that most of us cannot even imagine, for a great length of time. It is a little bit like an athletic competition. To ask anyone to withstand the rigours of being in tip-top physical and, might I add, vocal condition for 90 minutes is asking an awful lot. I do think you need to limit it just in terms of the sheer human physical capacity for what you can accomplish and 90 minutes strikes me as ideal.

The first Kennedy-Nixon debates were 60 minutes each in length with a panel of journalists asking questions and they flew by quite quickly. As we go around the world there are other countries where the debates go on for one reason or another—I am thinking of Costa Rica where the supreme court decided that all the candidates, no matter how fringe, had to be included in the debates. The debate was something like 18, 19 or 20 people on the stage and it went on for hours and hours and hours because everybody had to have a turn. You do not want that extreme. I think 90 minutes is right.

Q55 The Chairman: Do you have any views about how, in an election where you may have a number of candidates who are probably not likely to be the winners, candidates should be accommodated? Democracy demands that people have an entitlement both to present their case and for that case to be heard, but in the real world quite a lot of candidates in elections are never going to win. Do you have any view about how these issues should be dealt with?

Professor Schroeder: I do. First of all, no matter what standard you set, there is going to be a lot of grumbling. You are going to hear a lot of complaining about the rules no matter what. After trial and error, the Commission on Presidential Debates, with its requirement for 15% standing on an aggregate of five independent national polls, has about found the sweet spot here that makes for a legitimate candidate who could conceivably win national office. The reality is that by the time the debates roll around you are in the final stages of the process. A debate is not a place for someone to prove his or her validity as a candidate. There are plenty of other mechanisms to achieve that, particularly in today’s media world in which a politician with a clever message has instant access to a large platform. The debates are something a little more specific and a little more special than that. I think that 15% is a number that is achievable by a non-traditional candidate and yet is not so low that you are going to get the sort of people whose platform is building a lunar colony and exporting half of its citizenry up there. I would recommend 15%.

Q56 The Chairman: You have explained how the debates can go on too long and you expose the candidates to too much pressure for too long. I think your larynx has had its fair share of an outing this afternoon and our time is coming to an end. As well as saying thank you very much, is there anything you would like to say to us that we have not touched on that you think is important?

Professor Schroeder: There is one very quick thing, based on my reading of the transcript of your session with the broadcasters. There was some discussion of the worm and I have looked at this question of a worm around the world. It is used all the time in Australia with some fairly negative results. It is used occasionally in the United States. I think it is ridiculous. First of all, I think social media, particularly Twitter, has supplanted the worm. The real-time, real reaction of the audience is now measurable in ways that make the worm obsolete. A worm is a wonderful thing to find at the bottom of a tequila bottle but not so much at the bottom of the television screen. With that, I will leave you and say thank you very much. I enjoyed this. My only regret is that I was not able to speak to you in a human voice. Maybe you can read the transcript and get whatever you can out of it.

The Chairman: I am sure you will appear completely human in the transcript. Thank you. I am very grateful to you for coming. Thank you so much. I speak for everybody.