Minutes after Wednesday's debate in Hanover, N.H., between democratic presidential candidates Al Gore '69 and Bill Bradley, reporters gathered to interview the candidates' staff--and each other.

In the titanic press room at Dartmouth College's Moore Theater, cabinet secretaries mingled in the crowd. Unlikely pairs formed--conservative commentator Bob Novak chatted with Newsweek's leftish Jonathan H. Alter '79, who is also a Crimson editor.

As the next day's stories were being written and filed, everyone was talking about who won and who lost.

This is where "conventional wisdom" is born.

Wednesday night's debate marked perhaps the first time that many prospective Democratic voters in New Hampshire could see Al Gore unfiltered.

But minutes after the debate was over, journalists were already "spinning" the debate in light of Gore's recent slide in the polls. Immediately, whatever the American public thought about the debate became entangled with the media's collective musings about the outcome.

The conventional wisdom said Gore's substantive message was strong. He attacked Bradley's plan to spend the federal budget surplus and sought repeatedly to distinguish his position from that of his opponent's.

While his performance was energetic, it lacked spontaneity, they said. He tried too hard.

Is this what the voters themselves saw? That question--even for polling professionals--is tough to answer once the media's verdict is handed down.

"Generally speaking, media coverage has a huge impact," said John Zogby, who runs Zogby International, one of the nation's most prestigious polling companies.

"It not only sets the agenda of what people get to see or hear...it also frames the message," he said.

When Zogby sets himself to conduct a poll, he keeps two factors in mind. Generally, he said, voters don't form nuanced opinions until 36 to 48 hours after an event. But during that time they're exposed to the media consensus.

Zogby's latest New Hampshire poll--released well before Wednesday's forum--puts Bradley nine points ahead of Gore, well outside of the margin of error.

Gore's campaign has proved particularly vulnerable to media analysis. It plays into the punditocracy's love of taking apart complicated political machines.

Members of the media are friendly with many of Gore's top campaign advisers, and they will write a steady stream of headlines at any hint that Gore is tinkering with his strategy.

Although you wouldn't know it from the press given to Bradley's surge in the Northeast, the vice president is still a strong candidate elsewhere. He leads Bradley in super-delegates-- "uncommitted" members of the party elite who traditionally give their support to the favored candidate.

And Gore has recently taken a number of steps to improve his image. He's fired pollsters, reshaped his campaign staff moved his operation to Nashville and has taken to challenging Bradley directly on the issues.

When it comes to what Democratic voters are looking for--attention to issues such as public education quality and access to health care--pundits can't fault Gore for not talking about what matters most to the party's core.

When two candidates are so similar, voters can turn to their respective styles. Gore's eager-beaver, combative-yet-folksy manner contrasted with Bradley's didactic sternness Wednesday night.

But that's just the opinion of the media.