Having grown up in the political atmosphere of the nation's capital, where he was born, Richard L. Berke has been a reporter or an editor at the Washington bureau of the New York Times since 1986. He was recently named associate managing editor for news. Read Richard Berke's bio.

Q: After seeing the first presidential debate of 2004, what are the things for the viewers to be paying attention to in the next two presidential debates?

Even Republicans conceded that President Bush did not do as well as they had hoped in the first debate. They were concerned that he looked distracted, like he didn't want to be there, and that Senator Kerry used the opportunity to present himself as a respectable alternative. I think viewers will now want to see if the president changes his behavior to correct those negative impressions of him during the first debate. Polls after the debate found that voters have significant doubts about Mr. Bush's policies toward Iraq, and that Mr. Kerry still is perceived as pandering to voters. So they both will likely try to address those concerns.

But these next two debates will be focused more on domestic issues, so viewers should expect Mr. Bush to make the case that every American has benefited from Bush tax cuts, and so has the economy. Look for Mr. Kerry to say that the tax cuts have only added to the deficit, and been targeted to help the rich, and that the economy is not so rosy.

Q: Rules of the debates are widely talked about this year. What's different this year? Is the debate still worth watching?

There are many more pages of rules on every thing from camera angles to cutaway shots. Many of them were pushed by the Bush campaign in an effort at brinksmanship. Perhaps the most obvious change is the set of lights on the lectern telling candidates when their time is up or almost up. But practically speaking, so far all the new rules have not made much difference. The first debate, for instance, did not seem much different in format and execution from the ones four years ago.

Of course the debates are worth watching -- millions seem to think so. For all the candidates' talking points and preparations, they give the American public a good sense of their differences on policy and differences in temperament.

Q: What demographics make up the undecided voters? And what does your reporting indicate that these swing-voters are looking for to make up their minds?

Undecided voters are marginally more likely to be from the suburbs than from large cities, more likely to live in the midwest than in other regions and more likely to be white than black. But in other respects they are much like other voters. Men and women are equally undecided, so are people from varying income groups and age groups.

It's hard to know how they are making up their minds; for some people it's based on gut-level feelings about the candidates; for others, it's about their issue positions.

Q: How does the New York Times cover the debates? Because of the constraint of the paper's deadline, the reporters and editors are required to come up with a headline while the debate is still going on. What do you do to make sure your story reflect the big picture?

For our first edition, deadlines are so tight that we have to finish writing the story before the debate is even over. We simply tell the readers that the story is based on the first half of the debate. For later editions, we have a much more complete package of stories. We have more than 25 reporters involved in covering and watching the debate, fact checking what the candidates say, soaking up the scene, so that our coverage can be sharp and thorough even under intense deadline pressure.

Q: The TV reporters have taken over the role of debate moderators because of the single-moderator format. Does the newspaper industry feel excluded from the process?

We don't feel excluded. In the old days, there used to be panels of questioners that included print reporters. But I think it's more effective to have one moderator so the questions can be more focused and so the attention is mostly on the candidates, not on who is asking the questions. These debates are really television events, so it probably makes sense to have a moderator who knows TV the best and is most comfortable in that format.