Fox and ABC have each decided to leave candidates out of the Presidential Debates that they’re airing in New Hampshire next week. They list their reasons, but neither network has budged from its position despite letters and complaints pouring in. I think this is appalling, the networks should be ashamed of themselves. It doesn’t really matter who’s in and who’s out, the fact that they’re excluding anyone is outrageous. I came to a different conclusion when NBC did this in October, but I’ve had some time to re-think my position.
These televised debates are the primary means for the American people to learn something about each candidate. Of course there are other means, but tell that to my grandmother. She knows what she sees on TV. The networks are essentially narrowing the selection for the people. I know they need to have standards, otherwise there would be hundreds of candidates vying for a spot on the air. Excluding Hunter, Kucinich, Gravel and Paul is not justifiable.
I understand why the selected or invited candidates want to be there, but I don’t understand why they’re remaining silent on the issue. The networks are apparently free to flip on who they’re inviting at any point, they don’t seem to have any accountability. By selecting who gets to participate in the election and who doesn’t, they’re influencing the outcome of the election. It isn’t a level playing field if all entrants can’t participate. They’ve taken the position that there is a popularity threshold that must be met in order to debate. That sounds like a fine standard, until you realize that not one of the network executives which came up with this plan is elected. I did not give NBC the permission to decide who will be available for me to vote on.
I’m not a fan of Mike Gravel, and I probably would not vote for Dennis Kucinich either, but that’s the point. I do respect them as candidates, and I recognize that other Americans have a say. I do not, SHOULD not, have the ability to limit their exposure to the American public. This strikes me as an injustice. Finally, I’m no politician or attorney, but I don’t see how its wise to censure a sitting congressman or senator.
Of course there needs to be some means of selecting the candidates that are most likely to succeed in the election. I am not comfortable with television networks having a hand in that process.
They are affraid of Ron Paul :) just stop watching tv.
I think you’re probably right on both counts. I don’t fully understand why people are afraid of Ron Paul though. He’s not your standard politician, but his constituents in Texas are pleased enough to keep him in office for several terms.
The New Hampshire GOP just withdrew from being a Fox forum partner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080105/ap_po/on_the2008_trail_3
At first I thought this wasn’t such a big deal. With so many candidates, it’s hard to give enough time to any one candidate to get much deeper than the content of their ads and press releases. Besides, Fox and ABC are hosting the debate, so I don’t have a problem with the notion that they get to decide who’s invited. ABC’s criteria seems fairly logical, but I disagree with Fox’s basis for their decision. If Fox only considered the results in IA, I agree with the point, “why should the results in Iowa determine the participants in the last debate before the NH primary?” The polls show that the results in NH will most certainly differ from those in IA. Paul is likely to be a factor, so he should be part of the debate. I don’t think this is censorship, I just think it’s a poor decision on behalf of Fox that is not compatible with their claim to be “fair and balanced.” It definitely doesn’t fall in line with “We report. You decide.”
@Liz
So, I’ve given it some thought, and I definitely see your point. Fox is a privately held news source, and they’ve invited candidates to a panel discussion. Based on that, they get to choose who they want to speak. I still assert that, as you point out, this is not fair and balanced. I’ve seen news stories since then that in addition to all of the individuals that have spoken on behalf of the candidates, Fox affiliate stations were calling the Fox headquarters encouraging them to reconsider, and rather than listen, they closed their eyes and ears and dug their heels in.
In the end, I think this was ultimately a boon for the one candidate that I would have wanted there, Dr Ron Paul. Dr Paul has received more press coverage due to being excluded, than the candidates who were actually present. So, the result is that Fox gave a voice to the one candidate they wanted to squelch, and pissed off a lot of people in the process. I’d call that fair and balanced.