Interruptology Explains the Presidential Debates

If the thought of tuning in to the second presidential debate on Sunday fills you with dread, you’re not alone. More than 80 million Americans watched Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spar at the last debate, while moderator Lester Holt fired off critical questions that seemed to disintegrate, unanswered. After 90 minutes of noisy word exchange, viewers were left with only the broadest outlines of the candidates’ stands on domestic and foreign policy -- the issues presidents are supposed to deal with.

What trickery do the candidates employ to make the challenging questions or uncomfortable topics disappear? One clear pattern from the last debate was that the candidates interrupted each other almost constantly. But as I learned from University of Iowa communications professor Kristine Muñoz, it wasn’t just the number of interruptions that made the debate so unsatisfying. It was the type. A study in “interruptology” sheds light on why the last contest was so uniquely exhausting -- and how viewers might glean more information from the next one.