I’ve been writing about presidential debates as a TV critic for six elections[!] now. Before I go back at it tonight, a few points about what I do and don’t try to do.

When I’m writing about a debate, I don’t try to decide who “won.” That’s Family Feud journalism—“Here’s what I think other people think,” which is useless and usually full of condescending assumptions about voters.

I am not evaluating the candidates’ substantive answers on the issues. That IS a useful form of analysis, and it should be done by for people who know more than I do about those issues.

I am watching the debates as a critic, which is to say, trying to unpack messages, especially less obvious ones. How are the candidates saying what they’re saying? What’s the subtext of their answers, their presentation? What are the meta messages?

(Examples of meta-messages in debates: Trump’s insulting attacks in 2015-16 were the meta-message, “Life is an unfair fight, I will attack your enemies.” In the Dem primaries, much of the meta-message was, “This is how I will make the case against Trump.” &c.)

More: what is the moderator asking and not asking? What, through questions and framing, is the moderator saying about what’s important in this election? What—and who—is getting left out? How is it all contextualized by the networks picking up the feed?

A debate, like anything on TV, is full of visual and verbal information. So as a critic, I’m trying to figure out: What does the whole add up to? How did it feel, beyond what it said? What is this debate, and each candidate, saying without saying it? /end /finally