WASHINGTON—The debate between the presidential and vice-presidential candidates were not debates. They were joint news conferences, in which the American people had an opportunity to hear the men seeking the top office in our government answer questions from a small number of well-prepared journalists.

Whatever the shortcomings in this format—some of them serious—no one would deny that the citizens of this Republic learned a great deal about the minds and temperaments, the policy views and the leadership skills, of these aspirants for the national office.

What happened in the 4 1/2 hours in which George Bush and Michael Dukakis, Dan Quayle and Lnoyd Bentsen answered questions, explains why a Harvard University pannel last week made a strong case for the revival of the presidential news conference in the next administration.

The main point of the report from the John Shorenstein Barone Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government is this: No better device exists for establishing the accountability of a high official than vigorous questioning, at frequent intervals, by a small, skilled group of journalists.

That is the reason the Harvard panel recommended that the next President meet with the regular White House reporters in some setting like the White House breifing room at least once a month for a news conference lasting at least half an hour.

The report suggests that each month he also hold a news conference or arrange an interview with a smaller group of reporters, either specialists in a particular field or generalists drawn from the ranks of correspondents, editors or editorial writers.

Television would be present at all of these sessions, which would be held in daytime hours, allowing live broadcasts or excerpts for the evening news programs. Transcripts would be made available immediately to all print reporters.

The idea is to remove some of the theatrical elements which now tend to dominate the rare, prime-time news conference President Reagan has held in the grand surroundings of the White House East Room. Taking the routine news conferences out of prime-time and placing them in a breifing room or small auditorium would give them an atmosphere of working informality that should encourage frank exchanges.

The report acknowledges a value in occasionally arranging for citizens but suggests that they be regarded as supplements to the regular menu of twice-a-month, daytime sessions. Three a year in prime time with the White House correspondents and another three with network anchors or other small groups might be enough, the report suggests.

This report is the work of a dozen young, working journalists, including this reporter, and eight academics, several of them specialists on the presidency.

Obviously the journalists were influenced by the frustration we have felt at the rarity of Reagan’s news conferences, but our academic colleagues helped put this problem in a broader perspective. The report and recommendations have been endorsed in principle by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. White House press secretaries from several past administrations have joined former Reagan White House communications director David Gergen in saying it offers a practical and principled start on reviving a badly damaged institution.

What exactly is at stake in reviving the presidential news conference? It has many values for the President. It provides him an early warning system of problems his staff may be concealing and a readily accessible device to nail rumors or clear up misunderstandings.

From the press’ standpoint, it reduces our dependence on anonymous, unattributed sources in the White House, and lets us be more honest and accurate in reporting to you. No White House reporter is going to take a self-promoting staff member’s word on something if he knows he can ask the President about it tomorrow.

But by far the most important value is the one demonstrated by the joint news conferences of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Seeing how they answer questions gives you, the citizens, an unrivaled insight into the way their minds and emotions work, what they really feel and believe. It is as good a device for assuring accountability in our elected officials as we possess.

Mayors and governors, city council members, county commissioners, legislators and mebers of Congress routinely and frequently hold news conferences to answer questions their constituents want answered. They understand that democracy requires a continuing dialogue between the people and their leaders. Presidents should be no different. And the Harvard report offers a practical, nonintrusive way of getting news conferences back on the White House schedule.