NO ONE presidential candidate managed to outshine the other in what should have been a golden opportunity to do just that that during Thursday night’s TV debate.
By all accounts, the debate, broadcast live across all five major channels, was labelled a resounding flop and monumental bore.
Instead of a much-hoped for heated discussion, viewers were forced to endure two hours of presidential hopefuls Demetirs Christofias, Ioannis Kasoulides, and Tassos Papadopoulos regurgitating their familiar election promises.
The debate, which lacked discussion and confrontation, resembled more of a ‘Q&A’ session, and came in for a wave of criticism in yesterday’s press.
“Large expectations, poor performance”, “Debate, same old” and “Debate ‘battle’ a disappointment” were but a few of the headlines.
Media consultant Nicholas Karides said the candidates’ political strategists had a lot of answer for that.
“I think the political strategists for the candidates were so anxious not to have any slip ups, mainly through confrontation, that they agreed among themselves to have a fairly firm and formal set up, both in terms of time and in the way questions were answered to mitigate any pitfalls for the candidates,” said Karides of Ampersand, a public affairs agency.
The candidates were under strict three minute time limits for each answer.
With only weeks to go in what looks set to be a tight race between the three hopefuls, the journalists spared the trio from a grilling, Phileleftheros said.
“The content of the debate left little room for dialogue,” the paper said.
Politis and Phileleftheros both criticised the process for failing to touch on a number of key domestic policy issues.
“It served mainly to promote the promises the candidates have already stated regarding their internal governance,” Politis said.
There was “no real big mistake for any of them and no real shining moment for them,” Karides admitted.
The debate disappointed in that it focused on minimising the candidates’ contrasts rather than highlighting them, the papers said.
Simerini, normally an ardent support of President Tassos Papadopoulos, said none of the candidates had made much of an impression and that it had been a “boring discussion”.
The only brief relief from the tedium came during a minor clash between Papadopolos and AKEL leader Christofias regarding issues on increasing the retirement age, the foundation of private universities and a medical school and increasing pensions, it said.
Alithia also commented on the fact that the pre-agreed procedure had “neutralised” the dialogue, resulting in “boring monologues”.
Even Machi, a supporter of DISY and the right wing party’s MEP Kasoulides, said the debate had mainly served as a monologue for all candidates.
Nevertheless, it said its man had come up trumps and had “won the first round of the debate”, headlining its report “Ioannis Kasoulides convincing”.
Only AKEL mouthpiece Haravghi failed to criticise the debate in any way. Instead, the paper called the process an “interview” and took the opportunity to write a lengthy electioneering article rehashing Christofias’ answers and campaign promises.
Karides said although the debate had been boring to viewers as it had lacked excitement, it had allowed the candidates to show some of their attributes and put some of their messages across.
The set up of the debate was “very stiff and predictable”, which didn’t allow for any flow and often neutralised any opportunity for debate, he said.
“You couldn’t sense any heat of the moment, but I didn’t expect much more than what we saw, precisely because [I] thought the strategists would be over protective,” he said.
Overall, there was “no real big mistake for any of them and no real shining moment for them,” he concluded.
