The first televised presidential debate took place in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. The story of this shift in how Americans stay involved in politics is well known but bears repeating. In 1960, there was still a large portion of voters who listened to the radio. Those who listened believed that Nixon won the debate.

However, those who watched the debate on television saw a much different picture. They saw a tired, pale Nixon up against a groomed, healthy-looking Kennedy. This was one of the most significant times a presidential campaign was affected by media coverage. It’s been over 50 years since that debate, and we are starting to see some of the more foreboding effects of how television is changing politics.

The buzz around this year’s nationally televised political debates is growing, and it’s easy to see why. Controversial does not begin to cover the inappropriateness that is displayed throughout these debates, which don’t seem to further any part of the political process.

Sure, a candidate may strike gold with a well-prepared and well-delivered comment on health care reform, but that is not what is under fire here. In fact, what the candidates have to say is not the issue at all. It is the audience that has stirred up a reaction from advocacy groups, political commentators and viewers at home.

This year’s race to the White House has seen the rise of several zealous candidates. Whether this speaks to the legitimacy of any of their campaigns isn’t clear. What is clear is that audience members in support of particular candidates are expressing the same zeal in a much less professional manner.

For example, in a recent televised Republican debate, video questions were sent in from a range of Americans from across the United States. These video questions were displayed for all of the Republican candidates to hear and respond accordingly.

One video in particular was sent in from a homosexual soldier affected by the recent repeal of the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. As the video was playing, unseen members of the debate audience began to discourteously boo the soldier as he posed his question about homosexuality and the army.

This raucous booing was not questioned nor was it addressed by any of the candidates or by debate officials.

This isn’t to say the candidates don’t want to encourage responses from their live audience. Talking points have become catch phrases. Every time Rick Perry brought up Texas’ famous death penalty, the audience cheered as if they had all found new car keys under their seats.

This was recently parodied in the season premiere of “Saturday Night Live,” which has made itself infamous for their political coverage during presidential elections. In the sketch, the studio audience displays a complete lack of decorum for what is supposed to be a serious and formal debate between candidates who aspire to be the next leader of the free world. In all honesty, calling this a parody may not be entirely appropriate, since that actually happened.

We can only hope that this kind of obvious support for candidates with the highest score on the applause-o-meter doesn’t skew voter decisions. Debates used to be about letting candidates present their views and promises to the country and then letting voters decide for themselves who has won their vote.

Perhaps it’s time to go back to the age when presidential debates didn’t have any audience participation and winners were decided with votes,  not inappropriate cheers or yelling.