The results above find that both the general election and primary debates have witnessed the replacement of the majority of the questions asked by the moderators from those presented in neutral frame and addressing policy, to questions that embrace the sensationalist (and unconfirmed) issues of the day, questions that trap candidates with no good way to answer the question, questions where the moderators issue blistering attacks on the candidates personal lives or character, and questions where moderators attempt to fact-check candidates according to the ways they personally view the candidates’ policies. Almost two-thirds of contemporary presidential debates involve personal attack questions as opposed to only one-third only eight years ago. This has truly moved from the conclusion that public debate agenda is less focused on conflict than the media’s (Carlin et al.,2001; Kaid et al., “the 2000; Morello, 2005; Schroeder, 2008).” (Turcotte 2015, 244) In addition, the corporate cable news networks lead the way by huge margins in the incorporation of these hostile and conflictual questions into their debate structures, as opposed to public or non-profit networks. This is contrary to Turcotte who that commercial journalists are no more likely to retreat to soft news and infotainment “finds questions than the public and nonprofit journalists. In fact, they outperform nonprofit media in setting a hard news and policy-driven agenda” (Turcotte 2015, 252) These findings are significantly problematic citizens are going to make a reasoned choice “if based on the ideology or character of the competing candidates [because], they need to know what positions and values the candidates support.” (Rowland 2013, 533). The findings contained herein raise several troubling points as well as essential and immediate questions that must get further study by scholars. The impact of a personal attack driven exchange throughout the course of a presidential election has repercussions for both the candidates and electorate as well. Will this focus on sensationalist questioning impact political candidates’ decisions to even enter the race for President of the United States, in effect keeping people from running who (as was George Washington in seeking a second term) are afraid that the perception of slander will besmirch their families or reputations? Does
The results above find that both the general election and primary debates have witnessed the replacement of the majority of the questions asked by the moderators from those presented in neutral frame and addressing policy, to questions that embrace the sensationalist (and unconfirmed) issues of the day, questions that trap candidates with no good way to answer the question, questions where the moderators issue blistering attacks on the candidates personal lives or character, and questions where moderators attempt to fact-check candidates according to the ways they personally view the candidates’ policies. Almost two-thirds of contemporary presidential debates involve personal attack questions as opposed to only one-third only eight years ago. This has truly moved from the conclusion that “the public debate agenda is less focused on conflict than the media’s (Carlin et al.,2001; Kaid et al., 2000; Morello, 2005; Schroeder, 2008).” (Turcotte 2015, 244) In addition, the corporate cable news networks lead the way by huge margins in the incorporation of these hostile and conflictual questions into their debate structures, as opposed to public or non-profit networks. This is contrary to Turcotte who “finds that commercial journalists are no more likely to retreat to soft news and infotainment questions than the public and nonprofit journalists. In fact, they outperform nonprofit media in setting a hard news and policy-driven agenda” (Turcotte 2015, 252) These findings are significantly problematic “if citizens are going to make a reasoned choice based on the ideology or character of the competing candidates [because], they need to know what positions and values the candidates support.” (Rowland 2013, 533). The findings contained herein raise several troubling points as well as essential and immediate questions that must get further study by scholars. The impact of a personal attack driven exchange throughout the course of a presidential election has repercussions for both the candidates and electorate as well. Will this focus on sensationalist questioning impact political candidates’ decisions to even enter the race for President of the United States, in effect keeping people from running who (as was George Washington in seeking a second term) are afraid that the perception of slander will besmirch their families or reputations? Does