“It was crucial to hear from the leaders,and we wanted to give them as much of an opportunity to talk about their own policies and test each other as well because ultimately,they have made this a test of character so we needed to see their character and I think last night we saw the true characters of both men,” she told Nine news.
Nine’s director of news Darren Wick said the debate had been set up so the leaders could question each other and go head-to-head. “We deliberately structured it so there would be a bit of crossfire,because we wanted to see who they are under pressure,” he said.
He thought it made for good theatre,“although it was uncomfortable when Sarah Abo was trying to moderate and they talked over the top of her”.
Associate Professor Andrew Dodd,Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne,said the debate should have been allowed to flow more freely with fewer interjections from the moderator.
“Despite the fact that the debate was a bit too controlled at times,it allowed us to glimpse a politician speaking not through the filter of the media,” he said.
He highlighted the rare opportunity for politicians to go beyond polarised debates and gotcha moments and add nuance to their arguments.
“They were actually challenging each other to go past glib three-word slogans. Typically,we get curated and selected excerpts of what they are saying,” Dodd said.
Nationals deputy leader David Littleproud said “emotions took over” and some of the messages on policy got lost.
“We believe we have a superior policy position and record but unfortunately it descended at times to an attitude where,you know,I think people would have been a bit disappointed. But that is the nature of these combative debates.”
Labor MP Stephen Jones accused the prime minister of deploying a strategy to deliberately interrupt Albanese,which he said affected the quality of the debate.
“It didn’t allow[Albanese] to get his points out. If that was what the prime minister was looking for,tick,he achieved his goal,but on the downside it didn’t look good for Australian politics.”
Former Labor senator Graham Richardson told Sky News the leaders would have gone into the debate with the main goal of not making a mistake.
“As long as you just keep going and you’re error-free,you don’t need to win debates,you just need to not be beaten badly,” he said.
“I think so far they’ve come out pretty even. They always do. I don’t think debates decide elections,but I think they’re necessary as part of the democratic process.”
Clare described the debate as “pretty full on,pretty shouty” in an interview with ABC radio’s Patricia Karvelas on Monday morning.
However,the Labor frontbencher said Albanese needed to fire back at times against Morrison.
“You’ve got to push back against try-hard bullies like Scott Morrison. You have to know you’ve got to respond with the facts. And that’s what Anthony did last night,” Clare said.
Birmingham came to a different conclusion about who came out on top.
“I think it was a pretty scrappy format but,in the end,I think Scott Morrison again showed a greater grasp of detail than Anthony Albanese,” he said.
Loading
Albanese said he outlined a number of Labor’s policies,but “Scott Morrison didn’t have anything to say except shouting. He only had smears and that smirk throughout it all”.
Viewers were unable to split the two leaders,respondents delivering a 50:50 final verdict in the “who won the debate” question. It was based on votes in an online poll run by 9.com.au,but many people reported they weren’t able to cast their vote.
Wicks brushed off claims of a conspiracy in the voting.