ABC debate a joke

[elwoodblues]

Kind of a cop-out answer, but fine. If you want the debates to be run purely from a business standpoint, I suspect that you can completely understand why Ron Paul isn't getting as much coverage as you would like.

[j555]

[ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so allocating the same amount of time is obviously unrealistic. What about giving the frontrunners more time, but letting the lesser tier candidates address each topic in the debate at least once? They covered abortion, taxes, the bridge collapse, and health care and Ron Paul didn't even get to give his views on any of these issues and a couple of the other lower tier candidates were shut out from getting to give their stance on some of these issues. Ask the frontrunners 2 questions on these topics or give them double the time, but at least let the lower tier candidates address these issues at least once. This way the public gets to know where everyone stands on an issue and they can compare/contrast while still giving more time to the frontrunners.

[Kaj]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You're logic is flawed.

Just because I prefer the networks to have Debate A rather than Debate B doesn't imply that I myself want to watch Debate A or Debate B. It merely means that I want the rest of you to watch Debate A rather than Debate B because we'd have a more informed electorate with more choices.

By your logic, I couldn't prefer one education system over another if I don't have a child in school.

[elwoodblues]

Kaj:

[ QUOTE ]
What I'd like, however, is for it to present a few hours of real discussion between 12-15 candidates at several different times... But as a consumer, that's what my preference is

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You're logic is flawed.

Just because I prefer the networks to have Debate A rather than Debate B doesn't imply that I myself want to watch Debate A or Debate B. It merely means that I want the rest of you to watch Debate A rather than Debate B because we'd have a more informed electorate with more choices.



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand..."as a consumer" you prefer long debate formats, but you don't actually consume such formats (so you really can't call yourself a "consumer" of such a format.)

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kind of a cop-out answer, but fine. If you want the debates to be run purely from a business standpoint, I suspect that you can completely understand why Ron Paul isn't getting as much coverage as you would like.

[/ QUOTE ]


You asked how I think debates should be run. I told you quite clearly how I'd like them run. I also gave the caveat that debates are hosted by private enterprises and the essence of "should" is up to them based on their consumers demand. I never said I *wanted* them run purely from a business standpoint.

This is a much more complete and realistic answer to your question.

Yet you call it a copout.

Methinks you didn't want a complete answer after all but were looking to pounce with an "AHA! But why should they do it YOUR way? or. But that's arbitrary as well!" type of retort, which got aborted by my reasoned response.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj:

[ QUOTE ]
What I'd like, however, is for it to present a few hours of real discussion between 12-15 candidates at several different times... But as a consumer, that's what my preference is

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

[/ QUOTE ]

You're logic is flawed.

Just because I prefer the networks to have Debate A rather than Debate B doesn't imply that I myself want to watch Debate A or Debate B. It merely means that I want the rest of you to watch Debate A rather than Debate B because we'd have a more informed electorate with more choices.



[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see if I understand..."as a consumer" you prefer long debate formats, but you don't actually consume such formats (so you really can't call yourself a "consumer" of such a format.)

[/ QUOTE ]

As a consumer, I watch all kinds of programming. I never said I wouldn't watch a long debate. I most probably would. My post just stated that I don't have to watch a particular program in order to prefer it over another program. Iron's response that my debate preference means I must also watch C-Span is flawed logic. Because I prefer Debate A over Debate B does not imply I would exchange my free time elsewhere for C-SPAN.


Here's more illustration for you since you seem to have trouble with this concept:

I'd prefer ABC Nightly News broadcast discussed world events such as Iraq more than they cover Paris Hilton sightings. I don't have to actually watch ABC News every night (or any night) in order to form this preference. I know this preference serves my interests in a better world. And yet, I'm still a consumer of ABC programming in general.

[owsley]

If you host a debate, you should make a big effort to try and get them all a similar speaking time. I don't see how this is debatable.

As for who should get invited, itsn't obviously "as many as logistically possible"? Given how representative democracy and its inherent accountability is supposed to work, isnt t worth our time to exhaust every option?

[The4Aces]

I think a good indication of Paul's progress will come at the Straw poll coming up. Iowa is an important state and we will see if he has made progress there. I think if he does > 10% then people will need to start taking his campaign seriously.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Given how representative democracy and its inherent accountability is supposed to work, isnt t worth our time to exhaust every option?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't so much whether it is worth our time; rather, whether it is worth the network's time. The debates take up expensive air time and don't get very good ratings. They have to make editorially decisions on how much time should be allocated to each candidate. Sure, they could give equal time, but why should a (hypothetical) third-tier candidate polling at around 1% get the same amount of time as the top 2 or 3 candidates? How about someone polling at .5% or .1% or .01%? They have to draw a line somewhere, no?

It seems like they have a few options:
Equal time to all. Drawbacks --- gives "equal" footing to candidates who aren't equal (essentially overrepresents the minor candidates); frontrunners less likely to attend; might hurt ratings to spend too much time on third-tier candidates.

Only invite top 3 or so, then give equal time. Drawbacks: second and third-tier candidates already have a tough time, this would make it near impossible for them.

Invite "all" (though it really couldn't possibly be all) and pro-rate time based (roughly) on polling numbers. This isn't even what they do now, based on polling numbers, Ron Paul should get about 36 seconds for every hour of debate. He gets much more than that now.

If you were a network executive looking to host a debate, how would you run it? Who would you invite? How would you allocate time? Keep in mind that you run a for-profit business and cannot spend too much on the debate (because of its low ratings.)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a good indication of Paul's progress will come at the Straw poll coming up. Iowa is an important state and we will see if he has made progress there. I think if he does > 10% then people will need to start taking his campaign seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree. If he gets >3% I'll be shocked.