In a June 12, 2007 column on the Christian Science Monitor website, PEJ Sr. Associate Dante Chinni urges news media to adopt new ways of covering elections. He points to the failure of the traditional presidential debate system to effectively inform voters about the many presidential primary candidates currently in the mix as evidence that debate coverage, in particular, needs a makeover.

Chinni writes:

A debate, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is "a contention by words or arguments ... as a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides."

If you have watched any of the "debates" among the 2008 Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls, you might be wondering if US news media read the dictionary much. The events featuring eight potential Democratic and 10 possible Republican nominees, each lined up on their respective stages, look and feel less like debates than talent shows. Each candidate wants to stand out and be noticed, without saying or doing something that might embarrass himself or herself.

As painful as they can be to watch, these early debates are nothing new. The Democrats' first primary debate for the 2004 presidential race was held on May 3, 2003 – there were nine candidates in that one. You probably don't remember it because it wasn't televised until hours after it ended and not televised at all in some parts of country.

And that's what's new for 2008. The media are treating these contests as something significant. CNN has gone so far as to run debate countdown clock on the days of its sponsored forums.

What has happened that the news media suddenly feel the need to pump up these contests? It's more than just hype gone wild. First, 2008 is going to be a big election year. With no clear nominee on either side, big issues looming, and a war on, the stakes are high...

...[A]n early problem for the media going into 2008 is that the game has changed, but the press has not. News organizations are trying to apply the same models that worked for them in the past to a new reality, and so far it looks clunky.

It may be time for mainstream media to think of new strategies for handling a changing world. For example, maybe instead of debates, broadcast outlets should consider airing a long interview with each contender. Maybe an evening of long profile pieces ticking through where each candidate stands and who he or she is would be in order. Or perhaps the networks could have different debates dig deeper into single issues. But that would require rival channels to coordinate.

As the race goes on, this need for a new approach is likely to come up again – and not just about debates...

Click here to read Chinni's column in its entirety on the Christian Science Monitor website.