Magister ([info]discreet_chaos) wrote,
@ 2007-07-25 14:42:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:2008, advocacy, debates, elections, free speech, media, politics

This is a Non-Partisan Issue
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post was on Tuesday's Newshour commenting on the CNN/YouTube debate, when he told Gwen Ifil;

You know, I actually think that, as I've watched these debates -- and this is the fourth Democratic one we've had already -- as I've watched them, the margin between the best performance and the worst performance gets smaller and smaller.

I felt like last night -- you know, I do a winners and losers column at WashingtonPost.com -- I had trouble picking losers, just because I thought everybody did pretty well. But the problem for people like Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd is that they really need a breakthrough, a big moment. And these debates haven't given them that yet.

I thought Dennis Kucinich did quite well last night. I thought Joe Biden did quite well. I thought Bill Richardson was better than he had been. And I thought Chris Dodd did well. But the problem is, what did we learn or see last night that fundamentally alters the dynamic, which is Clinton, Obama and possibly Edwards? I don't think we saw all that much that is going to make people who are watching think about this race in a different way.
Well, Mr Cillizza: How can one expect the media-defined second tier to have a breaktrough moment or alter the dynamic, when the supposed first tier gets almost twice as many opportunities to speak?

Unequal distribution of time has been a problem with most of the debates this primary season and it exists on both sides of the aisle. This is unfair and it does not provide the citizenry a chance to not only take an equal measure of all the candidates, but it also prevents their ideas from reaching the largest possible audience and our democracy is not being served.

Granted, there is no legal recourse to force the networks, sponsors, political parties and organizing committees to provide equal time to all qualified candidates, but there is the court of public opinion and that is why I urge everyone reading this post to sign this virtual petition and spread its address, far and wide.

Censorship can take many forms and among them is limiting the debate.

(x-posted)

(Post a new comment)


[info]everywordmeans
2007-07-25 09:04 pm UTC (link)
After I watched them, I also felt there was undue favoritism given Obama and Clinton. The after-commentaries leaned toward the two as leading in respect and value, whereas I think a more objective and fair perspective would've been to refrain from those kind of comments by the media. The skew is absolutely influential, and it shouldn't be. I'll sign that petition, and hopefully, it'll be of some good use.
Thanks for the opp.
:)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2007-07-25 09:19 pm UTC (link)
I haven't actually counted myself, but I've seen a breakdown of Obama getting 14 opportunities to talk, Hillary and Edwards each got 12, Dodd received 8 and everyone else had only 7.

This just isn't fair. After all, the media may have already made up their minds, but a lot of real people haven't even started paying attention.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]exvallis
2007-07-26 02:44 pm UTC (link)
I don't want "top-teir" people in office. Isn't there a qoute out somehwere about the person who wants to be President the most is the person least qualified to actually do it?
Why can't we go for someone completely different? Its not even regualar election season and I feel like the top teir people care more about personal gain than actually doing the job, regardless of what they say. And no one is seriously commenting on the fact that this "election season" started far too early. Its a very bad sign.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]discreet_chaos
2007-07-28 07:58 am UTC (link)
Something I find interesting and this isn't meant to take away from anyone, but the "top tier" among the democrats all have roughly the same elective experience, while those "underneath" have been in public service for much longer.

Perhaps the public does want "change", but I feel that's for them to decide and the supposed "top tier" was determined before many polls were taken and those that had been, basically reflected name recognition. I don't think there's any doubt that the media has tried to force their preferences onto us and maybe it's time, we let them no it's not acceptable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]litos
2007-07-29 08:16 pm UTC (link)
It's hard to get leading candidates to sign up for debates.

Note that Guiliani and Romney are backing out of the Republican Youtube debates due to scheduling conflicts.

The leaders have little to gain in the debates and much to lose. While I agree that it is ass to give them more time - I wouldn't be surprised if they had arranged such as a condition of their participation.

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…