[Insight & Opinion] Presidential Candidate TV Debates: A Potential Disaster

Seizing the Authority to Interpret Candidates' Remarks Leads to Success
Lee Junseok Frames and Sets the Agenda for Lee Jaemyung's Pledges
Kim Moonsoo Reveals Lack of Logic and Preparation

Some studies suggest that presidential candidate television debates only serve to consolidate existing supporters. However, a candidate who is overwhelmingly outperformed in a debate typically does not fare well in the election. In the 1960 United States presidential election, incumbent Vice President Richard Nixon lost to the relatively unknown John F. Kennedy due to his disadvantage in the TV debate. In the June 2024 U.S. presidential candidate TV debate, incumbent President Joe Biden was thoroughly defeated by Donald Trump. Biden resigned from his candidacy within a month.

The formidable influence of presidential candidate debates stems from their ability to set the agenda. During the official election campaign period, news media maintain mechanical neutrality. It is not news articles, but TV debates that generate issues capable of overturning the already established hierarchy among candidates. The candidate who leads the debate seizes the authority to interpret the opponent's statements. Based on this interpretation, the candidate then frames "the reasons why the opponent should not be elected" as a societal issue. This issue is what shakes up the election landscape.

In the first debate, Lee Junseok, the candidate from the Reform Party, elicited the following response from Lee Jaemyung, the Democratic Party candidate: "Of course, we should move to a 4.5-day workweek without a reduction in wages, and gradually achieve this through compromise..." Lee Junseok interpreted this by saying, "As you have just confirmed, Lee Jaemyung is only stating what he wants to do, without explaining 'how' he will do it."

Scenes in which Lee Junseok interpreted and defined Lee Jaemyung's statements continued throughout the debate. Examples include: "If you are going to answer that both extending the retirement age and increasing jobs for the younger generation are possible, then what is the point of this debate?" "This is a kind of eccentric economics, like saying the economy thrives as long as money circulates even if hotel reservations are canceled." "If you keep changing your answers on diplomacy overnight like this..." "He promises to establish the second police academy in both Namwon and Asan. Even as a candidate, he is recklessly making double-sided pledges like this." "(Regarding AI policy, in response to the statement 'the details will be prepared after review') I have heard your bold claim to invest 100 trillion won without any plan."

Some evaluations say that Lee Jaemyung performed steadily and confidently in the debate. However, by acting with the composure of a frontrunner, he appeared to be battered as his major pledges were attacked as being like a "pseudo-religion that appeals to the vulnerable." News outlets produced short video clips of the debate and uploaded them to YouTube and other platforms. These clips received far more views than other election news. Among them, the debates over his "hotel economics" remark and the "120 won coffee cost" comment sparked extensive public discourse. The controversy over double-sided pledges became a focal issue in the Chungcheong region. This marked the beginning of agenda-setting through TV debates.

After the debate, some polls showed an increase in support for Kim Moonsoo, the People Power Party candidate. However, it is questionable whether he was well-prepared for the debate. He kept looking at his debate opponents while speaking, so viewers mostly saw his side profile. Nixon failed to gain favor by looking only at Kennedy instead of the front-facing camera. Kim attacked Lee Jaemyung by asking, "Is it possible for a governor not to know about the deputy governor's case of remittance to North Korea?" Lee countered, "When people in Kim's camp received tens of millions of won in political funds, did you claim ignorance and receive a verdict of no charges?" Although such rebuttals were expected, Kim's camp did not seem to have prepared counterarguments in advance. A presidential candidate who succeeds in a TV debate reveals "charisma based on moral superiority" to viewers. Kim's delivery and content were far from charismatic. Resting on the results of the first debate would be a grave miscalculation.

For candidates who approach debates with excessive caution or without thorough preparation, the remaining TV debates could prove disastrous.

Heo Manseop, Professor at Gangneung-Wonju National University