Top Journalists Slam Rules for Bush-Kerry Debates

[UpInArms]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000643248

NEW YORK The restrictive guidelines for the upcoming presidential debates -- which include limits on follow-up questions, audience participation, and even camera shots -- have drawn heavy criticism from some of the country's leading veteran journalists, who claim the rules will diminish what voters can gain from the events.

"It is grotesquely wrong for a debate of this sort," said Marvin Kalb, who was for 30 years a correspondent at NBC and CBS and was among the questioners in the second 1984 presidential debate between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. "The only people who will truly suffer are the American people."

"Pretty soon, they're going to tie them up in such knots, there will not be debates, just appearances," said Kalb, currently a senior fellow at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University. "I find it shameful. Each is perfectly capable of talking."

<snip>

Among other things, the memorandum bars candidates from questioning each other. During the lone "town hall" debate, which will include questions from the audience, all questions will have to be submitted beforehand and reviewed by the moderator of that debate, ABC's Charles Gibson. An audience member who asks a question that has not been submitted will be cut off. No audience follow-up questions are permitted, either.

...more...

[progressivebydesign]

1. Let it be clear MOST of the demands were BUSH'S!!!!!!!!!!! n/t

[krkaufman]

20. Agreed. Olbermann's Countdown program went through...

... many of the criteria on Monday night, and acknowledged that nearly all of them were in Bush's favor -- and the 2 they said were in Kerry's favor were not, in my opinion. All of the points limited free debate (pre-fab questions, no direct questioning of opponent, minimal free speaking), which will benefit Bush. The closer the "debates" are to a mediated press conference, the better for Bush.

Perhaps a grassroots campaign should be undertaken to get the rules for this first debate changed?

[MostlyLurks]

38. A grass roots campaign to get the rules changed.

I wrote the following letter to my Congress people about two weeks ago but haven't sent it yet. Am I a complete crackpot? Please note that while I'm decidedly liberal, my reps are exclusively Republican (dig me, I'm disenfranchised) so I had to make it read more bi-partisan.

***

Good day. I am writing to you today as a a resident of the state of Ohio since 1979 and a registered voter since 1990. I am sending identical letters to <>.

Today, 48 days before what most people are calling the most important Presidential election in our country’s history, reports continue to circulate that President Bush is attempting to reduce the number of scheduled Presidential debates from three to two. During the 1996 campaign, President Clinton was sucessful in doing the same.

Were the media genuinely interested in acting as the “fourth estate”, a non-governmental check-and-balancer, three debates might suffice. The press could help Americans make informed choices via the examination of issues on the nightly news, or through the vigorous scrutiny of policy objectives on page one of the local paper. As I’m sure you agree, the state of journalism in America does not jibe with this ideal.

Regardless of whether you subscribe to the idea that the media is “liberal” or “conservative”, it is inarguable that the media has one true master: vitriol and its propagation, not real examination of the issues. Today’s media favors, in all cases, sensationalism over substance. Witness the continuing, ridiculous debate about the military service, over 30 years ago, of the current Presidential candidates. This while the 1000th member of our Armed Forces was slain in a war that has divided America into opposing camps. This lack of integrity in the media makes the debates even more important. The debates offer an uninterrupted, unspun, un-sound-bitten chance to evaluate the candidates; evaluation that newspapers, television and the internet are today incapable of providing.

It is inexcusable, then, that there will be only three, or possibly two, face-to-face meetings between the men who seek to lead us for the next four years. It is inconceivable that such an important component of the democratic process is left to the control of partisans who run the campaigns, manage the candidates and control the message.

The Presidential debates should not be the “property” of candidates or parties, to be doled out as they see strategically necessary.

Therefore, I suggest required debates during Presidential campaigns. Federal law would explicitly describe the number, content and format of the debates and would force candidates to attend, possibly by denying them federal matching funds if they refuse to participate. Candidates are already under the control of regulations that dictate appropriate fundraising, organizational parameters and other limitations. This could simply be one more requirement.

For example, the rule could be struck to demand 51 debates between the candidates - one held in each state, plus the District of Columbia. The debates would be open to, and required of, any candidate who was on enough state ballots to theoretically win the electoral college in November, even if they were not on the ballot for the state in which a particular debate was held.

In this system, citizens of each state could submit questions to a state debate commission. The commission would screen the questions for content and work up a slate that represented the spectrum of questions submitted. If Nebraska citizens submitted 10,000 questions and 32% concerned farm subsidies, the commission would form a series of questions regarding farm subsidies that would occupy approximately one third of the Nebraska debate’s total time allotment.

Additionally, the format of the debates would encourage true engagement between the candidates. For example, the first speaker would be allowed to speak for an alloted time and finish with a question for his/her opponent. In rebuttal, the opponent could speak for an equal amount of time and finish with a question of their own. In the third “round”, the moderator(s) would be allowed to press for more information, ask follow-up questions, or ask questions that arise from the answers given.

This 51-debate arrangement, while exceedingly demanding, would allow citizens of the entire country to hear the candidates discuss the issue that most concern them. Additionally, the sheer number of debates would prevent so-called “barnstorming”, in which a candidate can deliver the same, pre-fab stump speech to ten crowds in ten cities in ten hours. Finally, it would ensure that the citizens of every state, no matter how small, no matter how “blue” or “red”, would have the attention of the candidates.

The campaigns themselves could easily be funded at both the state and national level by reserving some of the federal matching funds that are now given to the campaigns.

This is, of course, only my own suggestion as to how the system would work. No doubt there are flaws and holes in its conception, but I, for one, welcome any plan in which the debates are no longer a bargaining chip to be used by the candidate who has the best poll numbers.

Representative <>, I truly believe a system of national, mandatory debates would be the first step in a larger movement toward more civil discourse and meaningful discussion of the issues that face America and Americans. The people need to know more about their candidates than just their party affiliation.

Thank you for your time and continued service to the state of Ohio and the United States of America.

Sincerely,

<>

[Mike Daniels]

22. Which were agreed to and signed off on by the Democrat representatives

Geez, it takes two to tango and whatever bitching and moaning you all want to make, the Dems agreed to the points.

I guess the principled thing would have been for the Dems to say "no go" and go to the press and indicate why they vetoed the debate format. However, the fact remains that Kerry needs these debates and Bush doesn't since he's in the lead.

Barring some serious shit exploding in the Middle East while the debates are taking place or Bush having a melt-down on camera Bush just needs to go on and stick his landing on the questions that come up and he walks away a winner.

[w4rma]

35. And how would *you* go about getting what you want done, differently? (nt)

[jumpstart33]

40. I'm with you on this one. The Dems are STUPID!!! It would have been

better for Kerry to refuse to debate under these conditions and make it publicly known why. So what if the RW media had a field day of it, they are having a "field day" on Kerry now so what's the diff? I believe that more people would have had more respect for him if he would just for once stand up to the Rovites.

[arwalden]

2. Kinda Like Professional Wrestling. All Fake. Scripted. The Winner Is...

known in advance?

-- Allen

[krkaufman]

21. Bush has already "won", simply by getting the debates to run by his rules.

Same thing happened to Gore. I wish the Dem candidates would simply state that they will only debate by standard rules of debate (they MUST exist, right?), and let the Republican candidate show up, or not. I also wish that the Dems would not work to restrict participation of alternate parties (though this year may be the exception to the rule, since Nader is such a total Richard).

[Sparkle]

3. No questions from the other candidate?

Are they saying that there won't be any rebuttals? This is crap!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

7. I believe the moderator can allow rebuttlals if they choose.

Candidates can also ask retorical questions. I've heard some critics say if the rules are not followed then the Bush camp has threatened to leave. Yeah try that Chimpy. You'll show yourself to be the wimp you really are.

[RapidCreek]

19. Well you know he is resolute and strong......as long as he isn't

challenged that is.

RC

[krkaufman]

23. Exactly. I'd say break the debate rules early and often...

... without coming across as abrasive. (Ideally breaking the rules in several trivial ways intended to improve communication to the audience.) How will it look for Bush to leave or not show for the debate?

Of course, the Rethugs would try to spin any breach of the rules as a sign of Kerry's untrustworthiness, so doing so would not be without risk.

[Cocoa]

4. Kerry should (and I think will) ignore some of the rules

put the onus on Bush to make a big deal about stupid technicalities.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

10. Kerry should ask "did Cheney let you say that?"

Remind voters that Bush* blew off the 9/11 hearings.

[MallRat]

17. YES. YES. YES.

If Kerry questions Bush directly, Bush has two choices:

1. Cry foul and look like a snivelling, whiny twerp, or;
2. Answer the question and engage in a REAL debate.

I absolutely agree. Kerry should go for it.

-MR

[gratuitous]

18. No, Bush will just look at the moderator

Who will injure himself internally jumping up to cut Kerry off, Kerry's mic will be silenced, and the remainder of his time on that question will be take up by the moderator scolding him. Bush won't have to say a word.

[krkaufman]

24. Yes, I would love to hear Bush whine to the moderator....

... about his opponent speaking directly to him, again. (I can't believe that he wasn't eviscerated for that in 2000. Ok, I can believe it; but still I remain hopeful.)

[RapidCreek]

25. Indeed...the first thing Kerry should do is make a statement that

he has no intention of following the dictates of Bush's handlers.

He should say...."If we are going to call this thing a debate then let's debate. If you're too frightened to face me on those terms in front of our constituencies how can you foist yourself off as the leader of the free world George? Let's face it George....to be a leader you have to have a little iron in your spirit. When you deal with the rest of the world you aren't going to be doing so with the protection of rules designed to shield you from any sort of challenge...I should think you'd be able to deal with a few from me at the very least. I hear you are resolute and unafraid George...is that just a sound bite designed to cover your true nature? Do you want to debate like a man or not George? I don't now, nor have I ever, run or hidden from a fight George...how about you?" You have made allot of noise about our country going it alone....you've had no compunctions about sending our troops off to go it alone...are you willing to challenge yourself to the same standard? What do you say Mr. President...how about you go it alone and face me in a real debate, mano a mano?

Of course Kerry won't do this...which is really sad. Such a course of action would have the desired effect either way...if George ran away...well then...his true colors would be shown to the world. If he took the challenge his idiocy would be exposed. If Kerry was cut off the claims of a "liberal media" would ring hollow ever after.

RC

[Rockholm]

33. That would be way too juicy!

The media moderators would be pooping in their pants! The folks on the right would be crying foul! The folks on the left would be cheering" Thank God, finally!"

[WillyT]

31. I'm Wondering If THAT Is The Trap They Are Trying To Set !!!

Get Kerry to 'violate' the agreed upon rules, and with the help of Shrub's media whore friends, make that the story of the debate for the following several days. The 2004 version of 'The Sigh'!!!

:shrug:

[RapidCreek]

39. Fuck the rules

There ain't no rules in love and war.....and this is war.

What would be the story? That Kerry refused to coddle Mr. Bunnypants?
That the big bad Kerry made little Georgey cry? That little Georgey can only win a fight if his opponants hands are tied? Who gives a shit....the story would be...the rules...what they were and why they were.

Rules that make a debate not a debate aren't rules....they are the tools of stage direction in a scripted drama. That's all Kerry would need to say. That and maybe "I'm not a coward and I'm not afraid...I think on my feet and for myself as does any real leader...It's a shame Mr. Bush lacks these qualities. If he didn't he wouldn't need little rules to protect him from any real examination. I'm not here to protect Mr. Bush from looking foolish...I'm here to protect our country from looking foolish."

RC

[stellanoir]

5. Isn't freedom of speech

and a free media grand. . .?

[tom_paine]

6. Naturally, these "debates" are more and more Totalitarian in format

which of course makes perfect sens for a Totalitarian Nation like Imperial Amerika.

I would expect no less from us, but would if we were speaking of a Free Nation.

[shraby]

9. Kerry should ask Bush questions

What is Bush going to do about it...leave the podium, cancel other debates? Either way it puts him in a very bad position.

[starroute]

27. Rhetorical questions can be more cutting than direct questions

Saying, "Mr. Bush, what are you planning to do about the violence in Iraq?" gives him the benefit of assuming he does have some sort of plan -- and then lets him womble all over about how things in Iraq are getting better all the time.

But what about saying, "The American people are wondering what the present administration plans to do about the rising tide of violence in Iraq. They hear about the growing wave of hijackings, the increasing death toll among American military personnel, the inability of the Iraqi government to develop and maintain an effective police force. They look to the administration for answers and all they hear is that everything is going according to plan. What sort of plan is it that depends on hope alone and rejects intelligence evaluations that offer solid facts? What sort of planners can be surprised over and over again when their plans fail catastrophically and yet still insist they mean to continue on the same course? If I could ask Mr. Bush one thing, it would be to explain to the American people just what sort of contingency plans he has in mind if things continue to get worse in Iraq rather than better."

Something like that could be far more devastating that anything phrased as a direct question.

[Zorra]

8. Well....at least we know that the republikans will commit "debate fraud"

by doing some rotten, dishonest underhanded thing right before the debate.

You can count on this like you can count on the sun coming up tomorrow.

Why the Kerry campaign agreed to this I do not understand. In an honest, open debate, Kerry would smear Bu$h because Bu$h is a slow witted, inarticulate moran.

Rove and his think tanks have already set it all up, and unless the Kerry camp can figure out before hand how Rove is going to cheat, Kerry will be screwed.

[Claire Beth]

11. well, I say if they are upset about the debates....

they should have been OUTRAGED all along with the limited number of press conferences that Chimpy has given and the way the administration gets away with EVERYTHING by answering no "tough" questions from the press. I blame the media for most of this. There is a right wing bias there so they shouldn't start getting upset just *NOW* they should have been OUTRAGED all along!!!!

[madrchsod]

12. i have never watched a debate and don`t

intend to watch this one-well i`m working- but regardless, i feel the debates are pretty much meaningless. we will say kerry was good-bush side will say they won..the rest of the country will go about their daily lives and care less about the "great debates".

[Supersedeas]

13. No debates, just appearances = superficiality contest - Bush lite wins

[AspenRose]

14. And there's the problem

"I find it shameful. Each is perfectly capable of talking."

Well, ONE is perfectly capable of talking sensibly and intelligently...and it ain't the current president.

EVERYONE knows this.

That's why all the rules, Marvin.

[flordehinojos]

15. A long time ago, I heard ABC's Charles Gibson make the statement that

excused a California Highway (or Border) Patrolman who beat up and severely injured an illegal alien who had crossed the border that, "after all the patrolman's adrenalin had shot up in pursuit of the illegal alien, and ... can you blame him?"

Since then I came to think of Charles Gibson as a regular SOB and, that is still my impression of him... and to think that he will muzzle people who might want to ask a true and honest question of bush or kerry ....... we should all go up in front of the FECC and demand that they demand that the candidates have a real debate, not this stupid high theater which allows bush to hide himself in the glass bubble that he has created to protect him.

[RapidCreek]

26. Well that's good to know! Gibson has given Kerry the door of

opportunity right there! Kerry should mention this remark of Gibsons....and follow up with "I'm came to a debate here...my adrenalin is shooting up with the desire to have a real one....can you blame me?"

RC

[Bread and Circus]

16. This is a BIG issue and jus t "blaming Bush" is not good enough.

Kerry should have took a stand.

Sorry, folks but this doesn't go down well with me.

[blm]

30. Kerry held out to force three debates. If you think Kerry wanted silly

debate rules, you don't know Kerry. He WANTED as many debates as he could get. To get three his team had to take alot of Bush crapola on the rules.

[Bread and Circus]

32. Where's his public statements on these rules and why he signed to them?

This is what I would like to know.

Anyone have a link with him stating why he would he would sign such anti-Democratic rules?

[blm]

34. TO GET THREE DEBATES.

You would prefer NONE?

[Bread and Circus]

36. Where's the public statement by Kerry on this. I want a detailed

answer.

AND YES, I WOULD PREFER A REAL NONE TO A FAKE THREE !

[Bread and Circus]

37. Did you read the article in the O.P? Aren't you as outraged as me?

[pacalo]

28. The coWard is terrified that Kerry will outclass him.

What the hell was Vernon Jordan thinking when he allowed James Baker to call all the shots? If Baker was threatening to pull out of the debates unless each stipulation was met, then Jordan should have said, "Fine. Arrangements will be made to have televised townhall meetings between John Kerry & the voters. The voters will not be shortchanged. We'll give them the opportunity to vote intelligently."

[Eurobabe]

29. whaddya mean pretty soon -- appearances

it already is a sham!

[wrate]

41. What brought on the surge of empowerment from the press?????

This from a group of people who have encouraged and supported the FAKE pResident from day one!

I agree the the Democrats have not shown much of a spine lately but when you know that whichever stand you take you will be the looser, it can't be easy.

In any case this Fake Debates will rob JK from his one chance to show the Americans the kind of COWARD they have for pResident.

Democracy is DEAD in the U.S.A. and the press is partly to blame.

[Disturbed]

42. "The only people who will truly suffer are the American people."

Uh...that is a prediction of what will happen if the Neo Fascists retain power.

The Dems are weak and the cave on just about everything.

After this election, no matter what, I recommend that all Dems in Congress and elsewhere that are not willing to be Repub. lite, switch to the Green Party.

[Dr Fate]

43. I love when the press pretends to be mad at Bush- its so cute!

I guess since Kerry is involved, they can now complain about their lack of access.

They could have been complianing about Bush's secrecy all along- but they refused.