Why must MSNBC's decision be necessarily political?

[Writer]

Why do we believe that their decision was specifically based on Kucinich's politics, and not his national polling (below 5%), prompting MSNBC to focus their financial resources on the top-polling candidates?

I'd like to read what you have to say.

:popcorn: <-- I will take my answers off the air.

[mikelgb]

1. why do they need any reason to stiffle debate?

political or 'editorial' it is still fucked up

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

2. What are their specific criteria?

What polling numbers does someone have to have? Or is it just an off-the-cuff arbitrary decision depending on the subjective caprice of the news director at the time? If there's no specific criteria, what's to stop them from eliminating a candidate who's polling at 10% or 20%? What's to stop them from only ever allowing two or three candidates based on their own internal polls? The thing is, it's a decision that shouldn't be in their hands and should not be up to their own internally-formulated policy. It should be up to the party. The networks shouldn't be playing a role in selecting candidates, even if it's simply to better allocate their financial resources, as you suggest. The network should be observing and reporting news, not making it. They are making the news when they craft and engineer the nature of the debateas including which candidates from a party get to participate.

[Berry Cool]

6. Answer: Nothing is to stop them.

It really and truly is an entirely subjective decision of theirs who they want to air on their news programs. And this debate was one of their news programs. That's it.

"Up to the party"? Why?

"Making the news when they craft and engineer the nature of the debates"? You could just as soon accuse them of "making news" by crafting hit programs.

They're just one network. They're not the only place in which debates are ever held or aired.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

15. Easy answer - covering politics is covering news

Creating hits shows is creating hit shows, not news. There used to be specific and very clear divisions between the creative side and the news in TV networks. That was back in the days when there was more integrity in the news divisions of networks and they weren't the slave to profit shares and ratings. Not anymore, apparently.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

16. Here's an interesting article on the subject

It was written by one of my heroes, Professor of Law Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation's greatest Constitutional law scholars. The article is entitled "Changing The Rules Of The Game: The New FCC Rules On Political Debates".

http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000797/01/7_Comm_Ent_L.J._1_(1984-1985).pdf

Basically, under Ronald Reagan in 1983, FCC Rule 315 was changed and deregulation (Reagan's obsession) of commercial broadcast media was applied to political debates. Before that, Rule 315 provided for equal time in matters of politics. Political debates were specifically found to be news events. Because of the equal time requirements for public broadcasters, they never sponsored debates. Debates were sponsored by non-broadcast entities such the League Of Women Voters. News networks merely aired the debates as news events and didn't get involved in negotiating debate contracts with the candidates themselves. But in 1983 the rules changed and Reagan allowed the commercial broadcasters to sponsor debates themselves without having to give equal time.

Professor Chemerinsky makes the precise point in his article that I make, that there is an inherent conflict of interest in allowing a commercial broadcaster to sponsor a debate and report on it at the same time as a news event because it is precisely a news item. In doing so, the news organization is also making the news.

[defendandprotect]

3. Try this: Why is NBC/MSNBC entitled to any control over our elections --- ???

What the hell is a private corporation --- mainly engaged in profiting from war ---
doing involved with our elections?

[ellisonz]

8. ...

If DK is so opposed to corrupt corporations, why not just sit it out? Hypothetically, how would questions be chosen for a government run debate without bias? No debates at all?

[defendandprotect]

12. Presumably, voters have more imagination than your comments allow ---

PLUS, certainly other nations and our own past present ways to conduct campaigns which would create better results!

And what you are suggesting re DK is that HE should drop out because we have problems with corporations running our elections? HE should drop out?

First -- we need IRV voting --- you should look into that; many other nations use it successfully.
That would provide for third party candidates ---
And end the "spoiler" effect ---

Debates were often in the past between two people ---
there don't have to be "questions" created/filtered thru a corporate mindset ---

If we had public financing of campaigns, I'd suggest that the public also take charge of the schedules of appearances --- demand free air time --- the airwaves are ours.
However, the time would have to be planned to make productive use of it--

Additionally, the voters should say when and where candidates appear --
we have highschools in every town which would accommodate candidates ---
and let the audience ask their own question ---

[ellisonz]

17. I meant the corporate TV debates, not the election. They're a joke anyways, right?

IRV voting in on the national scale in the US would be a mess and probably wouldn't produce dramatically different results.

Sadly, the days of Lincoln-Douglas are long gone and the best we could really hope for would be national PBS/CSPAN debates. Many of the candidates hold significant numbers of open Q&A events in early states. Televised Q&A without some sort of vetting would be disasterous.

I support reformed public financing. But until that happens I don't think it is likely for a publicly financed campaign to win a general election because the costs are just too high.

Honestly, I think you overestimate the interest of the American public, just look at registration and voting statistics.

[defendandprotect]

18. Evidently you don't understand IRV voting . . .

It would produce immediately dramatic differences because it would provide for third parties and end the "lesser of evils" voting ---

That is way, way different from where we are now --- !!

Just consider what that much difference would mean to us --- !!!

Additionally, the IRV system would probably end our mess ---
if there's an inefficient and corrupt way to do things re our elections, it seems to
be happening in America ---

Lincoln-Douglas would quickly return if we put two candidates on a stage and gave each enough time --- with no set program. They would either speak sense or nonsense. And, yes, they could make a deal with one another not to venture into subjects they don't want to address . . . but the audience would sense that and Q&A would overcome that. PLUS, third party candidates would break that barrier and make the two conspiring candidates look ridiculous.

Additionally, the supposedly "significant and open" Q&A events by candidates you are pointing to seem to be highly managed --- especially in the case of Bush -- but we also see question planting by Hillary.

Yes --- we can permit PBS and C-span to carry "debates" if that's how we want to structure it, but the public should decide on what we want the formats to be. For instance, we could do this from the floor of Congress with c-span coverage and feed to PBS. We could still have audience participation by hook-up. Yes, someone can always try to manage the audience or plant a question, but I think when audiences self-select, we are less likely to have people with planted questions come to microphones.

Also --- you want to have people with reputations who would guide these Q&A periods ---
people like Howard Zinn, for instance -- a long way from idiots like Russert --- !!!

HOWEVER, in reply to your suggestion that Kucinich should agree to being sidelined though he is a legitimate Democratic contender for the Democratic Party nomination BECAUSE he is anti-corporate is standing reason on its head. Being anti-corporate, Kucinich should insist on not being sidelined by a corporation --- and not permitting a corporation to do harm to his campaign.

[Kucinich4America]

4. Because their "political director" Chuck Todd has made his bias obvious

And that fucking tool clearly represents the corporatists.

[Berry Cool]

5. I don't.

I think it was unfair to change their rules on him, to invite him and disinvite him. But ultimately they make the rules as to who they want to have on and who they do not. Some other network can include him if it wants.

He is not a "major" candidate just because he is a congressman, as someone tried to imply to me earlier this evening, suggesting I must be in the DLC's back pocket if I didn't agree.

[defendandprotect]

13. Kucinich is a viable candidate and should be included --- and not excluded at the whim of a corp ---

[oasis]

7. The results of the decision is what matters to voters. The best debate so far.

:thumbsup:

[onenote]

9. Because this is GD:Politics

and many of the posters here view everything that happens as politically motivated. Indeed, its likely that many will think this post is politically motivated. (But its not).

[Marrah_G]

10. I think that Feb 5th is coming up and there are people who have a shot and others who just don't

The reality is that DK is not going to even come close to winning. His numbers are extremely low. MSNBC wanted to give as much time as possible to the Viable candidates. As a voter I wanted to see the answers from these three viable candidates. DK has some great things to say, but all those great things are not going to help him even place in this race.

The debates are not an open forum- they are a forum for the people to be able to examine the candidates and with limited time they also limit the events to viable candidates.

Reality is often a bitch- I do hope whoever wins gives DK a cabinet spot, he has alot to offer.

[Maribelle]

11. The gotcha politics that msnbc played with their opening salvos would not have worked

But, those race tanks they were driving hit steel walls when they crashed into Hillary, Obama,and Edwards.

MSNBC failed to do what they were trying to do by omitting Kucinich. Boola Boola!

[defendandprotect]

14. Clinton, Obama and Edwards appearing though Kucinich excluded . . .

just presents us with more precedent for more authoritarian decisions by MSNBC in future ---
and some of those candidates may not like the results --
they should have bowed out.