The iconic 1960 face-off between United States Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon was not only a major turning point in American politics but a transformative event in global political communication. This was the first televised presidential debate, and it forever changed the way politics would be conducted in the United States and beyond. The debate drew an estimated 70 million viewers, showcasing the newfound power of television to shape electoral outcomes. What had previously been largely a radio-dominated medium for political communication shifted dramatically, as the visual component of televised media introduced new dynamics to how candidates could present themselves and how the electorate perceived them. This was not merely a matter of policies but of image, presentation, and narrative – elements that would continue to evolve. In the decades that followed, televised presidential debates became a tradition. Debates became platforms where political framing, emotional appeal, and storytelling became essential tools for shaping public perception. While the early debates aimed to provide a forum for candidates to make their cases directly to the electorate, modern debates have evolved into something much more complex. Media and technology are revolutionising political storytelling, reshaping public debates, and intensifying concerns about bias and truth in our digital age.
The modern political debates we are familiar with come from a long past of political framing and storytelling in U.S. politics. Political framing refers to the process by which politicians, campaign strategists, and media outlets shape public perception of issues, policies, and candidates. While framing is nothing new in American politics, the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debate marked a critical moment in the history of political communication, as television introduced an entirely new dimension to the equation. Kennedy’s success in that first debate is often attributed to his calm, confident demeanour, youthful appearance, and polished delivery. On the other hand, Nixon was recovering from a recent illness and appeared pale and uncomfortable under the harsh studio lights. This visual disparity between the two candidates on television was stark, and it was the first time that physical representation played such a significant role in a presidential election. Polls conducted after the debate showed that television viewers overwhelmingly believed Kennedy had won the debate, while radio listeners, who could only hear the candidates, felt Nixon had the upper hand. This contrast in perception demonstrates the power of visual framing and the influence of media on shaping political narratives. Over time, debates became less about substantive discussions of policy and more about performance and image.
From Policy to Narrative
As the Presidential Debate shifted from policy to performance, so too did the general tone of American politics, where storytelling and symbolism came to overshadow detailed policy proposals. Candidates increasingly recognise the need to craft narratives that resonate emotionally with voters – narratives that tap into voters’ hopes, fears, and values. Beyond that, they have become more cognisant of how physical expressions, such as facial expressions and body language, can affect public perception of their character and image. In this way, debates have come to function not as mere exchanges of ideas but as highly choreographed performances designed to evoke specific reactions from the electorate.
Political polarisation in the United States has also been steadily growing over the past few decades, irreversibly transforming the nature of presidential debates. What was once a relatively civil platform for discussing policy differences has increasingly become a stage for personal attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. This shift can be traced, in part, to broader societal divisions that have been exacerbated by demographic changes, economic inequality, and the rise of partisan media – those who cater to a specific extreme political ideology. The 2016 presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are a striking example of how debates have transformed into platforms for theatre and confrontation. During these debates, the focus often shifted away from relevant policy discussions and toward personal attacks, with both candidates engaging in sharp exchanges and accusations. Trump, in particular, broke with traditional norms of political decorum by employing inflammatory language, personal insults, and provocative statements prioritised spectacle over substance.
This rhetorical shift is part of a broader trend in American politics, where narratives of division, fear, and anger have become increasingly central. In a political climate where polarisation is deeply rooted, candidates are incentivised to play to their voter base rather than seek common ground. This dynamic was evident in the 2024 debate between Kamala Harris and Trump. Trump’s hyperbolic statement, ‘In Springfield, they’re eating dogs, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there,’ exemplified the use of fearmongering to support the anti-immigrant stance within the Republican Party to evoke emotional responses from voters. This kind of rhetoric, while not necessarily fact-based, serves a specific narrative function: it paints a picture of societal decay and positions the speaker as the one capable of reversing that decline. The narrative here is less about the specific realities of Springfield and more about the emotions and fears it taps into for voters – a tactic that, while not new, has taken on new dimensions in the digital age, with media amplifying targeted messages that heighten fear and anxiety. Unlike past appeals to caution, today’s media and technology enable near-constant exposure to emotionally charged content, raising the stakes and creating a perception of urgency that heavily shapes public opinion.
Kamala Harris, by contrast, employed a narrative that centred on restoring dignity and decorum to American politics. Her framing of the debate focused on the need for unity and healing in the face of growing division, presenting herself as the antidote to the chaos and volatility of the Trump era. This contrast in narratives – one evoking caution and disillusionment, the other optimism and progress – reflects broader tensions in American society. These themes, however, are not limited to individual candidates; they resonate across media landscapes that amplify particular emotional cues and shape public perception. Rather than reducing these contrasts to contemporary political figures, it is useful to see them as recurring dynamics in American political storytelling, where the media often mirrors and magnifies competing visions for the nation’s future. At the heart of these changes in debate format, rhetoric, and media intervention lies the fundamental concept of political storytelling. Political campaigns, and especially debates, are ultimately about crafting and conveying narratives that resonate with voters. These narratives are not just about policies or platforms; they are about identity, values, and visions for the future. Political storytelling is a powerful tool that allows candidates to connect with voters on an emotional level, tapping into their hopes, fears, and aspirations. One of the most effective ways candidates use storytelling is through the use of political framing. Framing allows candidates to present issues in a way that aligns with their broader narrative, emphasising certain aspects while downplaying others. For example, Trump’s narrative of a nation in decline – evident in his Springfield remark – relies on a frame of fear and insecurity. This frame suggests that America is in crisis and that only a strong, decisive leader can restore order. Harris, on the other hand, frames her narrative around the idea of restoring unity and healing. Her debate performances emphasise themes of prospective optimism. This contrast in framing is not just about policy differences: it reflects fundamentally different stories about what America is and where it is headed.
The Rising Role of Media
In recent years, the role of the media in shaping political narratives has become more prominent, specifically in the 2024 Presidential Debate, with its introduction of live fact-checking. Fact-checking is evidently a tool for holding candidates accountable for their statements, ensuring that the electorate they aim to represent is not misled by false or misleading information. However, the implementation of real-time fact-checking raises important questions about bias, objectivity, and the role of media in shaping political discourse. While fact-checking is intended to promote truth and accuracy, it is not immune to the same issues of framing that pervade other forms of political communication. Different media outlets often apply their own criteria when fact-checking, which can result in variations in how factual information is presented. This selective emphasis can influence the public’s understanding and trust in fact-checking processes, making it challenging to convey objective clarity across politically diverse audiences. This introduces the potential for bias, as different organisations may emphasise certain facts over others or present them in ways that align with their own ideological leanings. By choosing which statements to fact-check and when to do so, media organisations exercise a form of narrative control, guiding the audience’s attention and influencing their perception of the candidates. While fact-checking can enhance accountability, it also introduces a layer of mediation between the candidates and the electorate, with the media playing an increasingly active role in shaping the narrative. This dynamic was evident in the 2024 Harris-Trump debate, where fact-checkers were quick to challenge some of Trump’s more hyperbolic statements, but also scrutinised Harris on issues where her policy proposals lacked specificity.
As debates have evolved, the format itself has undergone significant changes. The introduction of live fact-checking is just one example of how the traditional norms of presidential debates have shifted. Another notable change is the move to limit the number of candidates on stage, particularly during the primary debates. This decision is often framed as a way to maintain order and ensure that each candidate has sufficient time to articulate their position. However, it also reflects a larger trend toward centralising media control over the debate process. Historically, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) played a key role in regulating presidential debates, ensuring fairness and equal time for candidates. Since 2016, however, the FCC has been largely sidelined, with media networks assuming greater control over the format and structure of debates. This shift has allowed for greater flexibility but also raised concerns about the potential for media bias and the exclusion of certain voices from the debate stage. The 2024 debate cycle exemplified this trend, with networks like CNN and Fox News taking a more active role in shaping the format and content of the debates. By limiting the number of candidates on stage and controlling the timing of questions and fact-checks, these networks effectively shape the narrative of the debates themselves. Traditional media, therefore, enjoys immense agenda-setting power for the democratic process which can keep candidates accountable but may ultimately not serve the best interests of the electorate.
The Medium Remains the Message
The evolution of presidential debates in the United States reflects broader changes in the political landscape, particularly in the areas of media influence, political polarisation, and narrative framing. What began as a platform for policy discussion has transformed into a stage for storytelling, spectacle, and media intervention. The 2024 debates, with their introduction of live fact-checking and increased media control, highlight the growing role of media in shaping political narratives and underscore the tensions between truth, bias, and storytelling.
As American politics becomes more polarised and media organisations play a more active role in shaping the narrative, the future of presidential debates will continue to evolve. Candidates will increasingly rely on storytelling to connect with voters, while media outlets will continue to influence how those stories are framed and interpreted. The shaping power of political narratives in debates is undeniable, and as the 2024 cycle demonstrates, these narratives are shaped not only by the candidates themselves but also by the media that amplifies and critiques them.
This article was originally published in OPR’s Issue 14: Fictions and Narratives.