Watching the debate, I found CNN's little audience reaction meter quite
interesting. If you didn't watch it on CNN, it was a line graph at the
bottom of the screen, like this:
The three lines were supposed to indicate how well a sample of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were taking whatever was going in the debating hall. They moved up in down constantly as the candidates spoke, appearing to indicate real-time responses. It's not really clear where the numbers came from--at one point, according to one blog, they said that there were panels of viewers in Columbus, Ohio, but the link he provided to CNN's own website doesn't work. At rate, it was an interesting play in the inevitable contest to determine who's actually won a political debate.
The three lines were supposed to indicate how well a sample of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents were taking whatever was going in the debating hall. They moved up in down constantly as the candidates spoke, appearing to indicate real-time responses. It's not really clear where the numbers came from--at one point, according to one blog, they said that there were panels of viewers in Columbus, Ohio, but the link he provided to CNN's own website doesn't work. At rate, it was an interesting play in the inevitable contest to determine who's actually won a political debate.
If you want to see how it worked, check out this sample of Republicans reacting well to McCain:
To begin with, it was an awfully bad graphic. Perhaps appropriately, as CNN didn't bother to make it clear what the lines meant, it was almost impossible to see them. I was watching on a rather good large-screen TV, and even there the Democratic blue and Republican red faded into the grey background, while the independent line, although it was clearly visible, was, oddly, yellow, despite being green in the key.
This aside, it's had an interesting effect on the discussion of the debate. By and large, online reaction to the graphic has been dismissive--'What the hell was it?' But it's also been used like a Rorshach Test, of course, by anyone who supports one side or another to show that they won a particular point. There is, of course, especially in absence of any indication as to what the data means, no guide to interpreting it reasonably.
I wonder, though, how it has affected the individual interpretations people made watching. The Commission on Presidential Debates generally forbids the live audience to react to anything said in the debate, for fear of influencing people's understanding of it. The meter, like applause during the debate, gave viewers grounds to say that one candidate or another was winning at a particular moment, even down to particular arguments or phrases.
My own sense is that is that the chart favored Obama overall in a purely political sense, as the independent line tended to track the Democratic line, implying that crucial independent voters were impressed by him--which probably had a political effect, as, odd though it may be, the perception that a candidate is winning seems to be politically advantageous. Especially considering that a focus group of independents in Pennsylvania (also trivially small) conducted during the debate favored McCain, it doesn't seem that it was by any means a necessary result. On balance, then, the inclusion of the graphic was an odd decision, perhaps irresponsible, which provided no real information to viewers but may have affected CNN viewer's sense of who won and lost Friday's debate.
To begin with, it was an awfully bad graphic. Perhaps appropriately, as CNN didn't bother to make it clear what the lines meant, it was almost impossible to see them. I was watching on a rather good large-screen TV, and even there the Democratic blue and Republican red faded into the grey background, while the independent line, although it was clearly visible, was, oddly, yellow, despite being green in the key.
This aside, it's had an interesting effect on the discussion of the debate. By and large, online reaction to the graphic has been dismissive--'What the hell was it?' But it's also been used like a Rorshach Test, of course, by anyone who supports one side or another to show that they won a particular point. There is, of course, especially in absence of any indication as to what the data means, no guide to interpreting it reasonably.
I wonder, though, how it has affected the individual interpretations people made watching. The Commission on Presidential Debates generally forbids the live audience to react to anything said in the debate, for fear of influencing people's understanding of it. The meter, like applause during the debate, gave viewers grounds to say that one candidate or another was winning at a particular moment, even down to particular arguments or phrases.
My own sense is that is that the chart favored Obama overall in a purely political sense, as the independent line tended to track the Democratic line, implying that crucial independent voters were impressed by him--which probably had a political effect, as, odd though it may be, the perception that a candidate is winning seems to be politically advantageous. Especially considering that a focus group of independents in Pennsylvania (also trivially small) conducted during the debate favored McCain, it doesn't seem that it was by any means a necessary result. On balance, then, the inclusion of the graphic was an odd decision, perhaps irresponsible, which provided no real information to viewers but may have affected CNN viewer's sense of who won and lost Friday's debate.
Leave a comment