As many readers know, Richard Nixon famously lost the first televised debate against John Kennedy because his five o'clock shadow made him look old and haggard on television. Tonight we had the first Presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama. I'd like to offer a few observations, taken straight from Intro to TV Production 101, a course which the campaigns and tv networks ought to revisit. The last live Presidential debate that appeared on American television was between Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda. I think it was a draw, like most debates full of talking points, sound bites and cliche. Perhaps Smits had a slight advantage given Alda's diminished bump after naming Jamie Farr his running mate. The stage set seems to be a universal fixture of all debates, whether on a fictional tv show or in real life, which lately has resembled a fictional tv show. Tradition is all well and good, but the setup of two podiums and moderator in the middle is not conducive to direct debate between the two candidates. As observed tonight, the candidates tend to respond to the moderator, and look not at each other but at the moderator. The problem with this from a pure tv production point of view, is that eye-lines are off kilter and sometimes reversed. As the following screen shots depict: Here, the two candidates are looking at Jim Lehrer during a question, or perhaps responding to the tally light on the wide shot camera. Looks ok. 
Next, we see Obama, on house right (stage left) speaking. He correctly alternated between looking at the moderator and at his opponent. 
Although not always: 
Next we have McCain who must hate Obama, because he tried very hard to never look directly at him, and most of the time was looking to his left, which is a bit odd for someone on the left side of the stage (house left, stage right) 
However, to be fair, the podiums (podiae?) are angled on stage, so the speakers are half facing each other with an easy view of the moderator, and presumably, offering the left and right sided cameras a 2/3 view of their heads, rather than a head on or profile. Thus, when McCain appears to be looking to his left, he is really looking at a right angle from the stage to the moderator, while Obama has a more flattering position at his angled podium, looking to the right to view both McCain and the moderator. This situation is made worse by the split screen view, showing one candidate's reactions (McCain smirking, Obama nodding and making notes) while the other is speaking. 
See what I mean. If McCain was not interested in facing Obama, his disadvantageous stage position made his intellectual position magnified. Thus, McCain's inferior stage position could be his five o'clock shadow, making him look even more disengaged than he really is. The cardinal rules of the vectors is basic TV 101. Even though the speakers and cameras were positioned to maintain the integrity of the vectors, the podium angulation combined with the split screen, and a real or implied decision by McCain to avoid eye contact with Obama worked to McCain's disadvantage. Such observations are lost on the average tv viewer, however the average tv viewer's brain interprets subtle nuances without the conscious mind's involvement. Perhaps in the next debate McCain will get the superior stage left podium, just to be fair. The other cardinal rule of television that struck me almost immediately was McCain's tie. Sure HDTV and digital televisions do not have the moire problems of analog television, but I and about 200 million of my closest friends still have analog televisions. Again, while the vibration of the lines on his tie may be lost to the average viewer, it can be subliminally disconcerting. Obama's people must have a copy of the Herbert Zettl classic Introduction to Television Production. Aside from the dated pictures of porta-pak u-matic cameras and 2 inch quad machines, the fundamental aesthetic principles are sound. McCain's tie (oh my eyes. Pay no attention to the scan lines from my digital camera) 
Obama's tie - still a pattern but no wavy lines Finally to the journalism aspect of the debate. Jim Lehrer of PBS attempted to get the candidates to address one another, to no avail. I don't know if he was trying to make them take a swing at each other or what, but Obama and McCain acted like two kids on the first day of school being pushed towards each other by their parents, "Go on Johnny, say hi to the nice little boy. That's it, he won't bite." Finally the gloves came off and the two men started getting into a proper debate. But when things started to get interesting, Lehrer moved on to another topic. A good start, but we really need to see the two candidates (plus third party candidates should they be acknowledged by network television) on a stage with full camera coverage, but no moderator. Let them show that they are educated adults who can have a civilized debate without any hand holding. One might argue that a debate needs a moderator. But I would argue that the moderated debates of recent history have discouraged any useful dialogue - useful that is to the viewer. As my college journalism professor used to say, ask real questions and then let people give real answers. Sound bites are ok for the nightly news, but voters want substatial discussion, something that is absent from most political discourse. Thanks for reading. Mike | 
