ABC debate a joke

[Ineedaride2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It sounds to me like Paul got WAY more time than he deserved given his low polling numbers. How much time do you think Paul should have gotten?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you invite someone to the debate, let them debate. Let all the invited candidates have their fair say. If let the front runners get the lion's share of air time, you are guaranteeing they remain the frontrunners and thus the debate is a farce, and the other candidates were only there to make the farce less obvious compared to not inviting them at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich? Would you rather see Ron Paul not invited at all? What would likely happen is if all second and third tier (Paul is probably third tier) candidates got equal time as the front-runners, the front-runners wouldn't agree to the debate and it likely wouldn't happen or it wouldn't be watched (not that these are huge ratings grabbers to begin with.)

At what point should someone polling at less than 5% just be ignored by the mainstream media? Paul is lucky he's getting the coverage he is. He is certainly getting more than Dennis Kucinich and has as much of a chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency as Kucinich.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the monetary contributions Paul has received alone pulls him out of the third tier group.

Also, it's my understanding that both Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter polled similarly to Paul in their respective campaigns at this point in time, and both went on to win the presidency, so yes, I think the time should be split a little more equitably. History has shown that the "lower tier" candidates are still in this thing, and deserve their time on stage.

Lastly, other candidates that poll just as low and have WAY less money in their campaign coffers got more time than Ron Paul.

Wonder why?

[mason55]

This was supposedly taken before any concerted efforts from Digg et al. to hit it (and originally ABC left Paul off the poll).

http://scottdangel.com/blog/?p=10

[Kaj]

Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich?

Yes. Absolutely.

Would you rather see Ron Paul not invited at all?

No. Absolutely not.

What would likely happen is if all second and third tier (Paul is probably third tier) candidates got equal time as the front-runners, the front-runners wouldn't agree to the debate and it likely wouldn't happen or it wouldn't be watched (not that these are huge ratings grabbers to begin with.)

But we'd have a more fair exchange of real ideas rather than exchange of soundbytes, which would be fresh. And if the major candidates chose not to come and the media didn't cave to their pressure, who would balk first? The candidates desperately need the media coverage more than the media coverage needs the candidates (like you just said, the ratings aren't overwhelming anyway). The only way to really change the current power structure is to allow more voices to be heard, and yes, of course, those currently with the power won't like that.

At what point should someone polling at less than 5% just be ignored by the mainstream media?

2% of voters still accounts for the voices of several million people. When we negate all the candidates running less than 5% (and it is still very early), we are negating nearly 1/3 of the entire electorate's voices. And when you're this early in the race, if you discount all the lower tier candidates, you make it impossible for any of them to ever move up to first tier. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You just guaranteed that only the voices of the select few who get the support of those already in power will ever be heard. And that's how it's been and it needs fixing. Getting more voices in the debate is one step towards fixing that. Ultimately we as both the consumer of the media and the voting electorate need to demand more air time for new faces and ideas. Ironically, post like yours seem to demand even less air time for new faces and ideas.

Paul is lucky he's getting the coverage he is. He is certainly getting more than Dennis Kucinich and has as much of a chance of winning the nomination and/or presidency as Kucinich.

Well that seems a poor attitude to me to say that really the only guy on the Repub aisle with fresh ideas is "lucky" to get the coverage he is. Really, WE'RE the ones who are lucky to finally see a fresh platform from that party. You should be glad not disdainful. And yes, I said earlier that Kucinich should get more air time as well. He has the freshest ideas on the Dem side.

[Dan.]

It's obvious that Ron Paul is just more organized in having his people vote. ;-)

[elwoodblues]

At what point should the media cover someone less in terms of polling numbers? What factors should they weigh when trying to determine how much of their limited time to allocate to each candidate?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Why haven't you been? Kucinich gets very little air time and is polling about the same as Paul (1% according to Zogby.) Where's the outcry about the unfair treatment that Kucinich is getting???

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Why haven't you been? Kucinich gets very little air time and is polling about the same as Paul (1% according to Zogby.) Where's the outcry about the unfair treatment that Kucinich is getting???

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I've never started a thread about any candidate. I haven't watched any of the debates. And I'm about 0.01% likely to vote for either major party. If this thread was about Kucinich rather than Paul, my post would have been identical.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]



Why haven't you been? Kucinich gets very little air time and is polling about the same as Paul (1% according to Zogby.) Where's the outcry about the unfair treatment that Kucinich is getting???

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I've never started a thread about any candidate. I haven't watched any of the debates. And I'm about 0.01% likely to vote for either major party. If this thread was about Kucinich rather than Paul, my post would have been identical.

[/ QUOTE ]


What factors should the media use in allocating it limited time?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you be saying the same thing about Dennis Kucinich?
[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Absolutely.

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]



Why haven't you been? Kucinich gets very little air time and is polling about the same as Paul (1% according to Zogby.) Where's the outcry about the unfair treatment that Kucinich is getting???

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I've never started a thread about any candidate. I haven't watched any of the debates. And I'm about 0.01% likely to vote for either major party. If this thread was about Kucinich rather than Paul, my post would have been identical.

[/ QUOTE ]


What factors should the media use in allocating it limited time?

[/ QUOTE ]

The media is a business. I don't believe it "should" have to do anything. What I'd like, however, is for it to present a few hours of real discussion between 12-15 candidates at several different times. Of course this is arbitrary. It has to be arbitrary because again, the media is a private business and doesn't have to do anything. But as a consumer, that's what my preference is. If more consumers made a demand for this type of coverage, I think we'd have a better democratic system. I'm not holding my breath though.

If as a consumer, you advocate debates with a limited number and time allocated based on current polling data, that is your right to express that preference. And its my right to express my opinion that such a preference entrenches the status quo.

[iron81]

Kaj, do you watch C-Span? If not, I don't think you're being honest with yourself about your preferences.