instead, you choose to select colleges and universities. why? >> we believe that debates are about education. that is the whole point of having them. if you can take them to campuses and get young people involved in their production, that is a great opportunity that we think we should pursue. for the most part, events that now take place during the general election period are out of reach of the normal community, the normal citizen. debates belong to the people. we think if you can take them to communities and campuses, that's a great way to actually get the public involved in these historic events. >> and if you look at the fall debates, you made the announcement a year ago that these debates were going to take place at four different colleges and universities. also, the dates selected in advance. you have learned over the years to make sure that this is part of the schedule, gnaw something that is trust upon the campaigns late in the cycle. >> that's right. first of all, they need to be able to plan. so the networks, the fall is a very busy television time and

you hope they'll hold the dates and keep them open for the events. third, there's a lot of preparation that needs to goen on the ground ranging from production to security, and fourth, it gives the campuses a chance to really take advantage of these and make sure they build in things to the curriculum that allow for a deeper understanding of what the general election is all about. >> our focus today, presidential debates. janet brown, who is the executive director of the commission on presidential debates with a look at the fall campaign and the role debates play in american politics. we also want to take a look back at past debates, primary and general elections to give you a sense of how they have evolves. one of the best ways to do so is take you back to september of 1960, the first of four debates between senator john kennedy, senator richard nixon, and show how that debate has changed into what we saw this past campaign cycle from cnn. >> good evening. the television and radio stations of the united states

and their affiliated stations are proud to provide facilities for a discussion of issues in the current political campaign by the two major candidates for the president. they need no introduction. the republican candidate, richard nixon, and the democratic candidate, john kennedy. >> from the rockies to the mojave, the american frontier is a historic land of opportunity for republicans. >> believe in america. >> tonight, the fight for the gop presidential nomination comes here. to a region where barack obama made inroads four years ago. to a state that could be decisive in the primary season and the general election. to a city where dreams are made. and crushed. stand by for a las vegas event.

>> janet brown from the straightforward to what many call political theater. >> just a stark and helpful reminder of the difference between the content of a presidential debate, which really is about the candidates, a moderator, and hopefully a very substantive conversation versus the notion that they really are events that can be hyped and turned into theater, entertainment, whatever it is that one wants to make of them. perhaps there's a place for what has happened in the primary season the last two cycles, but i'm happy to say that ours will look like 1960 in the next primary debate. >> we have examples of the primaries and general elections, but i want to go back to what was a seminal moment, the carter debate. the first debates in 1960 and

then a 16 year lag between '60 and '76 before the league of women voters put forth their debate. why such a disparity and why did the league agree to debate in 1976? >> the single biggest missing ingredient after 1960 was the public's expectation these should be a regular part of the general election. that hadn't yet been built into the process. so there was not enormous objection when the candidates in those three years in between decided that they would use one excuse or another to say that they did not want to debate. but by 1976, you had an incumbent president who had not been elected to the office who was running for election as opposed to re-election, even though he was the sitting president. you had a relatively unknown opponent, the governor from

georgia. both candidates decided they really needed the exposure, and they agreed to the invitation that the league put forth. >> one of those what if questions. and nobody knows the answer, but if you had to speculate, janet brown, do you think john kennedy would have debated in 1964 in his own election? >> one could only go to the 1960 debate and see a young candidate who was clearly comfortable with a new medium, television. it strikes me that if you had to guess, you would say that he probably came away from that feeling as if it had been a good thing. there are bits and pieces of interviews that show that he appreciated the potential for the medium and for reaching big numbers of people. my bet is that he probably would have thought that that should be considered seriously in '64. >> let's go to 1976. this is the debate that took place in san francisco. and to go back to janet brown's

earlier point, re-enforcing a view that gerald ford was the accidental president, was he up to the job? this is one of the moments that helped reeforce the narrative. >> in the case of helsinki, 35 nations signed an agreement, including the secretary of state for the vatican, i can't under any circumstances believe that the pope would agree by signing that agreement that the 35 nations have turned over to the war saw nations, the domination of eastern europe. is just isn't true. if mr. carter alleges that by signing that has done it, he's totally inaccurate. what has been accomplished wi the hel seeny agreement? >> we have an agreement where they notify us and we notify them of any military maneuvers that are to be undertaken.

they have done it in both cases where they have done so. there is no soviet domination of eastern europe and there never will be under a ford administration. >> i'm sorry, could i -- did i understand you to say that the russians are not using eastern europe as their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the countries there and making sure with their troops that it's a communist zone? whereas on our side of the line, the italians and french are still flirting -- >> i don't believe that the yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the soviet union. i don't believe that the romanians consider themselves dominated by the soviet union. i don't believe that the poles consider themselves dominated by the soviet union. each of those countries is independent, autonomous, it has its own territorial integrity,

and the united states does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the soviet union. as a matter of fact, i visited poland, yugoslavia and romania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the united states and the people of the united states are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy, and their freedom. >> governor carter, your response? >> well, in the first place, i'm not talking about the pope, i was talking about mr. ford. the fact is that secrecy has surrounded the decisions made by the ford administration. in the case of the helsinki agreement, it may have been a good agreement at the beginning, but we have failed to enforce the parts, which insures the right of people to migrate, be

free, speak out, the soviet union is still jamming radio free europe. radio free europe is being jammed. we have also seen a very serious problem with the so-called sawnenfield document that said there's an organic linkage between the eastern european countries and the soviet union. and i would like him to see if those countries don't live under the domnashz and supervision of the soviet union behind the iron curtain. >> from 1976 and janet brown, that became a defining moment. a couple things to keep in mind. you were inside the ford white house, so you had a different vantage point. second of all, this is the precable internet era, so it took a couple days for the story to unfold. it did not dominate the news that night or the next day, but over the next two to three days. so from where you were at and

how you saw it unfold, what was happening? >> i was a very, very junior member of the ford white house staff. to know president ford was to admire president ford for his honesty and his depth of understanding about everything he spoke about. one of the most interesting interviews we ever did at the commission was an interview with president ford some years ago when he said he knew exactly what he was saying, he didn't see it as a gaffe. if you go back, you understand as you said, the news cycle was in fact much more attenuated, and it was only in the 24, 36, 48 hours after the debate that all of a sudden funds started to be made of the fact that the presidente evidently understand that there was soviet domnashz of eastern europe, and he said there was no question in his mind what he had said was

accurate. he understood what it meant and there was nothing to apologize for. the post debate spin saw it differently, and it was something that meant he was not aware of the fact, the man who asked the question, max frankel, was an extremely respected member of the "new york times" staff. it took on a life of its own that affected the campaign significantly. >> we'll go to george mason in a minute, but libby moore from the washington center is first up. libby? >> hi, ms. brown. thank you for being with us today. my question, i was reading an interview between you and campaigns and elections from december of 2011. and it was said that the cpd seemed resistant to incorporating social media into the debates. seeing as social media seems to be here to stay, is it inevitable that will be need be

incorporated? >> that's a good question, and here are my thoughts on social media. there are obviously a lot of good things about technology that we should incorporate in terms of always modernizing the debates. anything that allows for more information to get out about the conversation that the debates foster and equally importantly engaging people in discussing that is a very good thing. but social media is a delivery system just like telephone and fax and lots of other innovations. the question is, how do you harness it to make it a productive aspect as a debate? how do you use it to bring in information or feelings from citizens, feedback to the candidates, that actually are substantive as opposed to gimmicky. you have seen a lot of that in the primary season. i don't know that it enhances

the educational value of the candidates. this is something we have been studying for the last several years, that we tried some experiments with in '08. we planned another project for '12 that i hope will be -- will build on the successes and be much more expansive than we were able to boo last time around, but acknowledges these are meant to be serious, substantive conversations that use technology around them to push the conversation during the entire general election period, not just four nights. >> there was one network, i won't mention the name of the network, but promoted twitter and facebook and e-mail questions and never used them in the entire debate. how does that facility the conversation beyond just those watching one to one? >> it raises an interesting point. everybody who looks at this, and libby, you're smart to raise it, is to understand that social media companies are for-profit

entities. they want to get their name in front of you so you will recognize it and use it. the question is, how to use it in a way that is actually thoughtful. one of the things that is troublesome about social media is the anonymity that attaches to some uses. that means i can say all sorts of things that may in fact be quite unhelpful to the conversation, may be quite disrespectful. how do you weed them out and try to focus on the good aspects of it? i would welcome anyone in the class room that you think are good uses of it that should be pushed and explored, but i have to tell you i don't think the notion of simply e-mailing a question to a moderator during a debate is very innovative thinking. >> let's go to bob lictor. >> okay, i have a question from a student. i'm going to get to in a second, but i always wanted a chance to hear from somebody in the ford white house exactly what

president ford did mean at that point, and obviously, he was aware that the leaders of those countries were installed in communist parties, elections weren't free, when check czechoslovakia had tried to break away in the spring, the movement was crushed by russian tanks. clearly, he knew that, and he was trying to say something else, but i have never been able to figure out exactly what it was? >> that's a good question. i would never presume to answer that, but we do have the luxury from this interview that we did some years ago of having heard president ford's explanation. and his explanation was very simple, that he knew in the soul of the populations he was describing they did not feel as though they were dominated or that they were controlled by the soviet union. there was a spirit that attached to their own countries, to their own citizenship that prevailed, and that's what he said he meant, which is why he did not think it was wrong.

>> bob lictor, we'll stay with you for a question from one of your students. >> sure. okay. mr. clark. >> you mentioned earlier that the debates have primarily had the role of cementing the public opinion with one candidate rather than changing their opinion. however, we have seen in the primary process, specifically in south carolina with newt gingrich, seeing a bump in his polling and winning the south carolina primary right after performing very well in one of the debates. my question is, to what extent do the presidential debates in the general elections sway public opinion for one candidate over another, and what do you think -- what role do you think they'll play in the upcoming election? >> that's a good question. and an observant question. it's impossible to predict how they may sway people. it is totally safe to say that

given the size audiences that watch these, a bad debate garners about 36 million people in this country alone. we don't have the measurements abroad. that is a much larger television audience than you have for any kind of other political programming, and indeed, for most programming in general. that's a lot of people who are just making a decision to tune in and get this information, and they're driven by one particular thing. this is the only time during the entire general election year that the leading candidates are on the stage together answering the same questions. with only weeks to go before the general election. and what we have seen is that people do find that very helpful, that it is helpful not only in terms of the content of the debate but in watching the way the candidates respond to a question, how they think, how they respond to a competitor, to

the moderator. there are a lot of different images and lessons people are taking away from this, and i'm not trying to dodge the question of how it will sway people, but i am trying to say there's no question people look to it for helpful information. i think it's only after the fact that you can see in any given year specifically how it sways people. sometimes it's like the '76 example that steve shows where there's a specific answer that gets people's attention. other times there are images they take away that again remain touchstones for people in a given campaign. >> tim, who outlined many of the stories in the book the students have read, tension city, i want to touch on the book and your reflections on it, but there's a photograph of the 1988 debate, michael dukakis and george herbert walker bush. you had been at the commission for all of a year with probably two of the most memorable moments took place in 1988.

i want to share both of thome with the students. the first is the question from bernard shaw to michael dukakis. let's watch the moment, come back and get the full story. >> governor, if kitty dukakis were raped and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty for the killer? >> no, i don't. i oppose the death penalty during all of my life. i don't see any evidence that it is a deterrent. i think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crime. we have done so in my own state, and it's 1 of the reasons we had the biggest drop in crime in any sdprael straight in america, why we have the lowest murder rate in tamerica. we have work to do to fight a real war, not a phony war against drugs. that's something i want to lead, something we haven't had over the past few years even though

the vice president has been, at least allegedly, in control of that war. we have much to do to increase that war, to step up the amount of agents, to work with our agents in this sem fear, and i want to call a hemispheric summit to fight that war. we also have to deal with drug education prevent here at home. and that's one of the things i hope i can lead personally as a president of the united states. we had great success in my own state and we reached out to young people and their families and have been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention. key can fight the war and win this war. and we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that kind of support, doing it in a way that will bring down violence in the nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop the avalanche of drugs pouring into the

country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and diecent neighborhood. >> in that debate moment from 1988, he answered it with clarity and a clear fission about what he thought. yet the late david gruber of the washington post that night told ann compton, he lost the election tonight. why? >> the answer surprised a lot of people for what wasn't there. there wasn't a sense of outrage and personal hurt at the image that bernie shaw had described. the governor is a very bright, very accomplished lawyer. he knew how he wanted to answer this, but he showed no sense of horror. and for an awful lot of viewer said and listeners, they told you something about the man, that he was able to look past this image that was so horrific,

i am told, i don't know for sure, he had been asked a similar question on the campaign trail only a matter of days before, and that he had answered it quite effectively. the thing we do know is he was very ill that night, had a bad case of the flu, he did not feel well. those are some of the kinds of things going on during debates that the audience has no way of knowing. that can affect the way a candidate tries to be very disciplined in answering a question. but it came through as something that sounded unfeeling. >> and that narrative going into the '88 campaign was that michael dukakis didn't have the compassion or standing or depth of sensitivity you needed in a politician? >> he had that image, and then when a question like that comes up when bernie thought about a lot and didn't ask because he thought it was unfair or unfeeling, but the response was to a lot of people missing something important.

>> and you and others in the commission have no idea what is going to be asked? >> no, the moderator is the only person who knows the questions. >> let's go to kevin rutherford from the washington center, and then we'll go to aerial giordano next. kevin, first up. go ahead. >> doesn't it seem like in some of say from 1960 -- well, to today, how they basically have gone from simple, sit behind a desk to performances? like if you wonder what's really going on or if it's going to end up turning into a theatrical farce. do you believe it's going to progress to basically the point where debates have become, like, meaningless in a way but very meaningful in another way or are they just going to become more important as people, like, realize that um --

>> i think we get your point. and this is coming to janet brown with a record of two dozen plus cdebates. >> kevin, i understand where you're going with this, but i would remind you that the images that are freshest in people's memories right now are the ones in the primary debates where there is a lot going on. and a lot that isn't necessarily substantive or respectful. some of which actually reminds me more of nascar than it does of serious political debates. if you look at any of the clips that steve has played, although they're dramatic moments, you will see that in the general election debates, there are candidates, either seated at the table with the moderator, which you have not seen yet, or standing at podiums. they're dignified, they're serious. there are no ruffles and flourishes. this is meant to be very serious

dialogue. how any candidate is going to respond to that given a specific question is something that needless to say, no one can control, but if these are seen as simply theatrical farce and i wouldn't expect anyone to watch because that's not a good use of a viewer's time. >> kevin, with that in mind, we have pulled together a couple clip said we think are relevant to this discussion. let's put one on the table. this is not aimed at any one specific network, but to show how the primary debates can and are different from a general election. this is one of the more memorable moments from john king. debate location, charleston, north carolina, this year. >> a fresh attack on the speaker, and mr. speaker, i want to start with that this evening. your ex-wife gave an interview to abc and another in the washington post and this story has gone viral on the internet. in it, she says you came to her in 1999 in a time when you were having an affair. she said you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage.

would you like to take some time to respond to that? >> no, but i will. [ applause ] i think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office, and i am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that. >> is that all you want to say, sir? >> let me finish. >> please. >> every person in here knows personal pain. every person in here has had someone close to them go through

painful things. to take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary, a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything i can imagine. my two daughters -- my two daughters wrote the head of abc and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and i'm frankly astounded that cnn would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate. >> as you noted, mr. speaker, the story did not come from our network. as you also know, it's the subject of conversation on our campaign. >> it was repeated by your network, you chose to start the

debate with it. don't blame it on someone else. you and your staff close to start the debate with it. >> janet brown, a lot going on there. the applause from the audience, the question, the way it was framed, newt gingrich's response, your reaction? >> a great example of why our first rule is there will be no participation by the audience. that's essentially a pep rally. that, i suppose, has a place in some part of the campaign. it certainly does not belong in debates that are taking place days and weeks before the general election. second, the moderators of the general election debates are focused on issues that they know are paramount on the public's mind. they are issue-oriented. they tend to steer very clear of personal topics. if you look at all of the questions that have been asked going back to 1988, you could measure on i think less than one hand any that worked to an issue

of someone's personal history. so yes, this is certainly entertainment, and to use kevin's words, maybe even bordering on political farce. it gave a candidate a platform to come out of the chute very fast, but not in a way that eliminated the discussion on where the candidates stand on the issues. >> i want to come back to 1988 in a moment. let's go to bob lictor from fairfax. bob. >> i'm tempted to ask whether michael dukakis would have responded lie gingrich, would he have had a better chance at becoming president? >> let's ask the question. what do you think? >> i'm sorry. >> i think that's an interesting question, bob. and your response will be more educated than-mile-per-hour. but you know what the speaker shows that was missing from goveor