What did the first election debate mean for British journalism and media?
The thoughts of some of our regular bloggers are below. Please add your view in the comment box.
Suzanne Franks
Centre for Journalism, University of Kent
If Nick Clegg was the winner of the debate, then the loser was Alistair Stewart. Oh dear, he was no Jim Lehrer, the accomplished and avuncular compere of so many US presidential debates. Both Adam Boulton and David Dimbleby must have taken heart that they can only do a better job in the weeks to come.
Stewart was awkward and gawky - and even sounded shrill at times. The audience was hardly put at ease by his manner. He waffled on about devolved powers and devolved responsibility, and wittered like a demented scheduler about the timing of future leadership debates in Scotland and Northern Ireland. He even managed to get the days and the times wrong about that.
Glenwyn Benson
Former editor of Panorama
So now we know why the politicians avoided having these debates for so long.
For, as was always possible, the leader of the smallest party won! That could never have happened under the previous broadcast arrangements for a general election, with their elaborate rules for airtime allocated by size of representation in parliament. The Lib Dems will be celebrating, and the other two parties will be hoping to stage a come back in the next two debates, but ruefully reflecting on the fact that they can now never go back on the commitment.
Brown's frequent mentions of Clegg, and depiction of him as an ally, were intentional tactics of course, but Clegg's highly rated performance could complicate things for the Tories and Labour.
It may make it more difficult for the Tories to take Lib Dem marginals they are targeting. Already, the Daily Telegraph reports that in such marginals Lib Dem candidates are holding their own, especially when voters are reminded of their name.
Although one missed the absence of challenge by a journalist interviewer, there was plenty of policy, and plenty of the all-important personality traits and emotional signals. Gordon Brown managed to combine both in one of his answers, when he said he was in favour of freedom for schools, and they would be closed down if they underperformed! And once or twice, when he was challenged on public spending, David Cameron seemed to be uncomfortably avoiding Brown's eye.
On the whole, the occasion seemed as natural and normal as a full English breakfast. (My analogy is in deference to the outraged nationalists from Scotland and Wales who appeared on the news protesting at their exclusion.)
Our politicians did a good job; our broadcasters did a good job. Democracy and the Fourth Estate are alive and well!
Michael Blastland
Writer and broadcaster
I went to the pub, with the cantankerous expectation - I'm 46 - that I wouldn't learn anything about policy by watching. And, I confess, the personality/theatre thing doesn't light my fire. But coverage today - as well as commenting on how riveting the occasion was - says there were real arguments about policy. Yet, in what I've seen, there's not much about what these real policy points actually were. Their substance seems secondary. The 'who did best?' line is fun, inevitable, necessary, but were there any new arguments about tax, recession, public spending, crime etc? I should have watched.
Claire Wardle
Social media trainer, BBC College of Journalism
I was staggered by the Twitter traffic last night and the backchannel added to my enjoyment of the event. But in many ways the level of debate was no different from the many Tweets sent during the Brits, or the X-Factor final.
But that was my experience. No-one can claim they understand 'the Twitter experience', as everyone's experience is different.
Best tweet of the night: @RickyTicky - "Tomorrow's news will be full of what role Twitter played in the #LeadersDebate when really we're all just making jokes."
Fiona Anderson
Writing coach, BBC College of Journalism
The debate never rose to anything approaching Obama's rhetoric. We heard about the "dark cloud of deficit" (Cameron) and "colleges of crime" (Clegg), which was a bit disappointing.
My unscientific jotting down of the leaders' favourite words and phrases produced the following:
Gordon Brown (who frequently used lists of three things):
"promise guarantees"; honest"; "responsible"; "fairness /unfairness".
David Cameron:
"what Gordon Brown is not telling you"; "you've had 13 years"; "what families and businesses across the country have had to do"; "let you down"; "change"; "cut waste/bureacracy/quangos".
Nick Clegg:
"neither of you"; "these two"; "both of them"; "let's be straight with you"; "a bit of honesty".
Dominic Ponsford
Editor, Press Gazette
With no pre-match debate coverage on ITV, Alastair Stewart had to charge into the biggest event in his career from a standing start. And he looked pretty nervous as he sprinted through his opening words. It took the zen-like calm of Nick Clegg's opening statement to slow things down.
After that I thought Stewart did pretty well. The complex rules meant that his job amounted to little more than directing traffic: he could ask no questions himself, but he literally shouted at Mr Cameron, Mr Brown or Mr Clegg when he wanted them to stop talking. At times it appeared pretty rude, but Stewart knew this event was too important to let them get away with the usual politician's trick of talking out the clock.
In terms of the post-match coverage, the BBC missed a trick for my money by not commissioning its own major poll to find out who voters thought had won the contest. Polls have to be treated incredibly cautiously (as we found in 1992 when general election exit polls wrongly gave the victory to Labour). But if Nick Robinson can give his opinion on who came off best from the debate - he seemed to favour Nick Clegg - why can't the voters?
Perhaps the BBC's defence would be: beware of instant polls. At first, the Sky News poll was calling the debate as a Cameron win in the eyes of the voters; an hour later, as more votes came in, this changed to Clegg; and by 11.30pm, as I headed off to bed, there was a Sky poll saying voters put Cameron in third place.
The focus group worm which the BBC experimented with, as did ITV, just didn't do it for me. When politicians say they want to cut unemployment and invest in the NHS, people approve - big surprise!
The ITV set at Granada studios was a bit plastic and reminded me of a daytime audience programme. A major civic or university venue might have lent a bit more gravitas, as would have putting Stewart behind a desk, rather than allowing him to walk around Kilroy-like.
But, given the limits imposed on him, Stewart deserves credit for hosting a highly watchable piece of broadcast journalism and facilitating a genuine discussion between the leaders.
My marks out of ten? ITV: six. Alastair Stewart: seven.
Jon Jacob
Website manager, BBC College of Journalism
As television goes, this was heavy-duty viewing.
Sometimes it looked like hard work for the party leaders. Seeing as they're looking for a job for the next four or five years, maybe they deserved the challenge. But what about the commitment the TV viewer had to make - to an hour and-a-half of political debate without a commercial break?
Today, internet users have learnt to get by with short attention spans, but this was an exception. Only by watching the 'unplugged' version could a fair conclusion be reached.
Charles Miller
Producer, BBC College of Journalism
So why did people think Nick Clegg won? Could it be ...
- His lighter suit made the other two look like they were attending a state funeral?
- By standing to the side of his lectern, he seemed to be more with the audience than Cameron or Brown did?
- He created a welcome micro-break from politics with a nice little piece of business about not being able to see someone in the audience because they were behind a camera?
- His use of "you two" and "the old parties" let him personify a general feeling against politicians while avoiding it himself?
- Because of his brilliant use of the names of questioners - not only referring to the person asking the current question, but with a bravura back reference, naming a previous questioner and her home town of Burnley?
