Difference in viewers' impressions of debate: split screen or not

[TexasSissy]

I watched the debate on C-Span, which used a split-screen format for the entire debate. I thought all the other stations were using the same format, but apparently not.

I've heard on TV since then that the president's campaign, which is the group that provided the television feed to the media, provided it to them via a feed that did NOT use the split screen format (if you recall, this was a rule of Bush's - not to show the other candidate when one was talking).

I have since learned through TV that there was a difference in impression of the debate resulting in whether a viewer was watching the split screen format or not. The print media (there were about 3,000 of them in a separate building near the debate) did not see the split screen format, and they came out with a more balanced view of the debate. The TV media, on the other hand, either used or had access to the split-screen format, and they came out with more of a Kerry win conclusion. The average viewers seemed to be the same.

This might account for some media and some people thinking the debate was a draw, while others saw it as a clear win for Kerry. I thought it was a win for Kerry, and I was watching the split screen.

I also was aware of the weird camera angles that favored Bush, while others seemed not to be. But maybe that's because it was that way only in the split-screen format (the Bush image was larger than the Kerry image; his podium hit the TV screen higher up than Kerry's, because his image was larger and closer to the camera).

It was only those who saw the split-screen who saw all of Bush's uncomfortable mannerisms and facial expressions.

[Misunderestimator]

1. Watched the debate at a debate party and CNN used the split-screen

On edit... it was also my impression that the image was not "larger" of bush, it was just focused a bit lower. You could see a good three inches or more of Bush's podium side-by-side with the image of Kerry's podium, so that Bush appeared to be the same height. If it was closer, his head and body would have appeared to be much larger.

I do agree that without the split screen, the audience would not have been able to see all the smirking going on while Kerry spoke.

[funky_bug]

2. I may be slow... but I did notice the podium..

I asked my hubby if Bush had a taller podium than Kerry, since so much more of it was showing. He was the one that had to point out to me that the camera was angled to compensate for the height difference. However, even if I didn't catch on to the trick, I did notice that there was some form of compensation going on... I'm sure anyone watching CNN noted that, as well as the fact that Georgie-boy was obviously wearing heels.

[TexasSissy]

10. You think he was wearing heels? I wasn't sure.

[TexasSissy]

7. I saw less of Bush's podium; it was just higher than Kerry's.

And yes, Bush's head was indeed larger than Kerry's. His head is not really larger - the camera was zoomed in to Bush closer, so that his image was slightly larger than Kerry's.

It could be that the images were adjusted so that each candidate fit comfortably into the screen, and that is why Bush was slightly larger; the camera could zoom in a tad more without cutting him off, since he's slightly smaller than Kerry.

[shockingelk]

3. I watched FOX

They had the angle different so Bush and Kerry's heads were at the same height, but it was obvious Kerry is much taller ... it was easy to tell the shot compensated.

They had plenty of split screen shots and seems to show an angle which showed both Bush and Kerry - which of course was bad for Bush.

[Lefty48197]

4. The chimp looked really bad in the split screen format

Maybe he wants the candidates to be behind a curtain while they debate?

[patricia92243]

5. I thought the split screen was set up to make Kerry look bad - all the

things you listed - smaller portion of the screen, different angle, and so on was all to make Kerry as unattractive as possible. BOY, did it backfire. That is what makes it so funny - it was a trap for Kerry - and Bush fell into it.

I'm just dying to see if they will split the screen again for the next debates and also for the VP debates.

[TexasSissy]

8. This is what I think. It was subtle. But it was there. If it had been

too noticeable, they wouldn't have gotten away with it.

The Bush team is VERY aware of visuals. Bush, for instance, has been on the right side of the screen in every debate I've seen him in. He has also always been on the right side of the screen during every dual press conference he's had (with foreign leaders or whoever). This probably means his left profile is more flattering, since he'd turn his head to the right to talk to or look at the other person.

Visuals matter.

[question everything]

6. CBS had the split screen and all the news reports on Friday showed them

as well as photos in the print media. Bush's demeanor was so obvious that even Fox, I would think, would be hard pressed not to post these photos of him.

[TexasSissy]

9. Well, the still photos were different, I think.

I've seen a couple of still photos on websites that were NOT the camera angles of the debate. So they must be actual photographic shots.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. It was a trouncing either way

On a non-split screen, Bush looked like an idiot when he was speaking. The split screen with his reactions just made the whole thing that much worse.