The affirmative team argued that Gore’s loss was due almost entirely to the media’s emphasis on style and campaign strategy over issues. They said the media, as the source of information for most Americans, have a responsibility to report substance and not just the exciting “horse race” aspects of campaigning.
“People want more than journalists are providing,” said James Speta, a professor in the Law School, in his opening arguments.
Another point stressed by the affirmative team was that the media had lower expectations for George W. Bush than for Gore.
“Al Gore was saddled by high expectations,” said Brian Link, a Weinberg junior.
He went on to say these expectations were so high that Gore couldn’t live up to them. Bush, on the other hand, was viewed as successful merely by holding his own, Link said.
The negative team countered with the arguments that the exciting aspects of campaigning keep people involved in the democratic process.
They argued that people are intelligent enough to make their own judgments, and that information on the campaign issues is out there for those who look for it.
“The burden is on you and me to decide what is and isn’t relevant,” said Bill Lloyd, a Weinberg senior. Lloyd also said there was anti-Bush as well as anti-Gore media coverage.
The emphasis on character is important, the negative team said, because that is part of what people want to know when choosing a president. In her closing statements, Prof. Susan Herbst, chair of the political science department, said personality and leadership are connected.
“People need to feel that they can trust their leader,” said Herbst, who is also director of the American studies program.
The affirmative team was chosen as winner by a vote from the audience at the end of the debate. But reactions from audience members revealed mixed feelings about whether the victor was clear.
“Both sides had very valid arguments,” said Kelly Humke, a Weinberg freshman who voted for the affirmative side. “It was hard to make a decision.”
Others who also voted affirmatively said they had qualms with the arguments put out by the affirmative team.
“Whether Al Gore should be president can’t all be attributed to media coverage,” said Weinberg sophomore Meredith Krevitsky.
The affirmative team did not address other factors that could have affected the election’s outcome, such as possible confusion over butterfly ballots or the racism some Florida residents have said they encountered on Election Day.
This was the second debate in the Great Debate series, a project designed to spark interest in debating and contemporary issues in the undergraduate population. The third debate is scheduled for April 9.
