HOW TO IMPROVE THE DEBATES

Is there a better way? This week representatives of the League of Women Voters will meet with agents from the Ford and Carter camps to chew over changes that could make the next two debates (on Wednesday Oct. 6 and Friday Oct. 22) more exciting and informative. There is, of course, no way of overcoming the limitations of television, which is simply not a medium suited to rational explanation of complex subjects. At any rate, the White House, figuring that Ford won Round 1 and should do well in the future, likes the old format just fine. Carter's forces by week's end had not yet made it known if they favored reform. But a lot of other experts had ideas:

.>Eliminate the questioners. Thus, the candidates could engage each other more forcefully and directly. ABC Correspondent Frank Reynolds, one of the three journalists who interrogated Carter and Ford, proposes that the candidates agree on a list of topics ahead of time and debate with only a moderator.

Says he: "The moderator could toss a coin to see who starts off and then let them go at each other." Adds Journalism Professor Edward P. Bassett of the University of Southern California: "All that's needed is an interlocutor who can keep them at each other's throat." But another panelist, New Yorker Correspondent Elizabeth Drew, disagrees. Says she: "At least we had the opportunity to inject reality. I don't think it would be too good to have Ford saying, 'Jimmy, is it true you want to increase spending to the sky?' Or Carter asking, 'Mr. Ford, why don't you put Americans to work?' "

>Speed up the debates. Rita E. Hauser, the Manhattan lawyer who headed the committee that set up the debate, urges that the others be cut from 90 minutes to an hour and that follow-up questions be eliminated because they slowed the exchange.

>Ask tougher questions. Robert Hughes, Republican chairman of Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland, thought that last week's panel tossed too many soft questions at the candidates. "Where were the tough questions? Abortion. Busing. Playboy. The purpose of these debates is to challenge these two guys, and that wasn't done."

>Permit quicker, easier rebuttals. Former CBS Anchorman Bill Shadel suggests that the candidates be given more time to reply to each other's statements. Says he: "To give a man two or three minutes without allowing a prompt rebuttal invites campaign speeches rather than confrontation." In addition, Ronald Matlon, a debate expert at the University of Massachusetts, recommends that the candidates be allowed to question each other directly.

> Make the debates less formal. New York Campaign Consultant Tony Schwartz considers the format antique, "the difference between opera and jazz," and unsuited to television. Says he: "They should have the two candidates sitting down in a relaxed way with perhaps one moderator and just talking. But the candidates were very rigidly handled. It was dehumanizing to see the way that they were programmed."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.