Remember the early debate where ordinary people emailed some of the questions put to the candidates. Those emailed questions centered on the real issues of this election; Iraq, Health Care, Economy, Jobs, Education, etc... The next day the talking heads were all "surprised" at marked difference between the emailed questions vs the "network talking head" questions presented by the debate moderator.

Rob, I fully agree with your position that the parties and candidates must demand debate questions that center on the real issues of the day rather than the over-inflated issues spun-up by the very partisan cable news talking heads!

Debate questions must be prepared by nonpartisan nonprofit organizations which do support/oppose candidates or political parties. All of the debates (that I can remember) run by the League of Women Voters always hit much closer to the mark than any of the debates run by the TV networks and their talking heads, including Olbermann.

by Runner (11 articles, 35 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 39 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:32:49 AM

  (0+)

Sorry, Make that "Debate questions must be prepared by nonpartisan nonprofit organizations which DO NOT support/oppose candidates or political parties."

by Runner (11 articles, 35 quicklinks, 47 diaries, 39 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:36:55 AM

  (0+)

As a participant in debate clubs, I have often wondered why the political debates don't follow the same format. Thanks for your thoughts.

Faith

by Faith Katz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM

  (0+)

Yes, even in high school debating clubs we all had very even-handed specific rules. These network debates seem to have no rules at all except that the moderators argue with the candidate (it's suposed to be a debate BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES, not including the host!) and they shut the speakers down when they don't like what they're saying.

by Jennifer Epps (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 32 comments) on Sunday, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:53:42 PM

  (0+)

I can't help but believe that this whole debate debacle is nothing more than a contrived distraction M$M is placing on themselves to take light off the fact that we have a White House full of war criminals.

Both the staged debate and the fire-storm of reaction to it has drowned out any attention being paid to news that nearly bush's entire cabinet have engaged in war crimes.

Is it import we have good debate? Of course, as well as fair elections, and numerous other things we could improve, but they pale in comparison to torture being ordered from the highest corridors of power.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:27 AM

  (0+)

yes, the networks should not be able to control the debate, but neither should the Dems and the Reps, or even a coalition of diverse media, though they should get their fair say. If there had been (with the use of the public's airwaves We grant the broadcasters the right to use in exchange for serving the public's interest) substantive coverage of the indys and 3rd parties running, the voters and media consumers would be demanding the Dems and Reps address a broader range of issues and options, one that more accurately reflects the concerns of Citizens. A Dem or Rep might still win the election on a level playing field, but they might not.

Ultimately, I think the voters need to be choosing the debate questions and the moderators. I'll bet a declining dollar a flag pin question wouldn't have made it into the top million, and Giblets and Staphinfection will never get another chance. With the internet and other technologies, such a thing would not be hard to facilitate at all. The elite parties and their elite backers seem to think they're entitled to rule, even against the People's will, and that they do a better job of running things than the People can- which is why the dollar is worth 10% of what it was and the Fed hasn't been replaced with a publicly-owned and controlled monetary system, why we're in Iraq even though Bush wasn't elected either time, why the media and Congress are just fine with the 9/11 Commission Report, and why our electoral system is not transparent, reliable or secure from hacking.

I disagree that the any special interest should have more power than any Citizen, and polling for decades has shown super-majorities don't trust the media, the govt and want an alternative- but apparently, of the many available, none has caught the imagination of enough people. The American Revolution only had about 45% popular support and the loyalists were down to 15-20%. That means about 35-40% didn't revolt, but didn't obey the King. Discontent is at these 70-80% numbers now- some studies show socio-political revolution is inevitable at 90%.  

I only advocate non-violent methods. Violence is not nearly as effective as peaceful protest and truth telling. Plus, movements that use violence are often co-opted by the elites for a political agenda- sometimes they are the ones behind it in the beginning, as the Bush Administration's only terror plot break-ups since 9/11 involved FBI agents trying to lead the "terrorist" patsies along until they could get "evidence" against them- just look at that recent terror acquittal in Miami. but making our media, government and political process reflect and be accountable to the People's will would certainly be revolutionary, and, like Thomas Jefferson, I think the People, with all the facts, will make the best decisions. 

Thanks to the web, elite arrogance about their evil and immoral practices, growing inequality and worsening economic conditions, the debate is changing in this country, whether they like it or not. ABCnews.com now has over 20,000 comments on their "debate"

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:06:05 PM

  (0+)

Good points.  I think part of the issue has been the number of debates held, what are we up to now, 19?  This does not strike me as the most important issue facing us right now.  Let's worry about turning the country around first. 

Networks that give us "Survivor", "Deal or No Deal", "Are you smarter than a 5th grader" "Dancing with the Stars" and other fluff shows are not exactly known for deep thought.  The people who design network programs (including News shows) are purely concerned with their entertainment value, not substance.  It is all superficial thinking, so why would any debate designed by a major Network be any different?  "Can Obama explain why he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin?"  Yeah, that is what America really needs to know because if you won't wear a flag lapel pin you must "hate America" right?  It is entertainment news.  It is what we have all come to expect from network news today.  Why weren't the Iraq veterans war stories covered?  Why don't you find investigative stories about politicization of the DOJ, the fabrication of information that led to an unncessary war, or even an in depth discussion about torture, mistreatment of Prisoners of War on National News?  Come on, Network News is worried about putting average Americans to sleep with real news.  They figure if you don't talk about the latest Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton, Brittany Spears, celeb gossip Americans just won't watch. 

My advice, if you want substantive information or news go to PBS not major networks.    Networks may blame declining viewership on competition from other news sources, but the real reason I (and I assume others) don't watch network news anymore is because it is so "uninformative." Who honestly feels they learned anything news worthy after 30 minutes of primetime news today?. I sure don't, but they obviously don't care how I feel, so they continue to compete with Fox News providing us with the latest and worst in quality programing.

by Peter Wedlund (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 211 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM

  (0+)

Now:  how we gonna do it???

Best wishes,

Alan aka alan17b0 

by alan17b0 (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:59:22 PM

  (0+)

You write "the problem is the major political parties ALLOWED the networks to take over." No, not "allowed" them to take over but eagerly SOUGHT their partnership. The major parties and the networks are a parasitic pair, each serving the needs of the other. The Party line ruthlessly excludes discussion of issues that might embarrass the military industrial complex. In return, the media does whatever is necessary to destroy any candidate who does question the culture of blind "patriotism" and unquestioning allegiance to capitalism that keeps our wars going and perpetuates the exploitation of the working class.

Obama committed the cardinal sin of implying that absolutely everything the flag stands for may not be unmitigated virtue. This is a slippery slope that might lead us next to wonder whether the reason we frequently attack other nations might be for the glory of conquest and the aggrandisement of the kings of capitalism rather than to protect democracy, a notion that is absolutely impermissable in Amerika today.

by Deano (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:06:25 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:12:41 PM

  (0+)

...just like the original requirement said TV was supposed to do in return for the right to the PUBLIC AIRWAYS. Moderators were indeed doing a better job when the League of Women Voters was running things, but basically, standards must be set and adhered to.

Also, Politicals ADS, that make Media moguls rich, annoy the rest of us,  and skew our Democracy, should be banned in lieu of debates...but I mean debates on the ISSUES, substantive, inclusive and exhaustive, featuring proposed SOLUTIONS, not personality tiffs, gaffes, or exposees. The rest of the tabloid media already trades in enough of that trash! (even so, where is the story of McSame calling his wife a C*nt in public?)

The public can figure out the candidates' "Character" well enough from the answers they give on serious questions, especially if they compare these to their actual RECORDS.

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 19, 2008 at 7:08:58 AM

  (0+)

what if a major player blog like huffpo or dailyka or an org like moveon issue questions to the candidates.  Or even better yet Stewart and Colbert could further the stance that Jon had last night and start to assume that 'issues' questions are the funny material and that the gotcha crap is serious news.  At that point the transformation would be complete, but I digress.  The questions would have to be ones that could be answered by any candidate (any party) so as to help avoid the petty crap.  If issues questions are asked of candidates and then answered the larger media would have to quote them.  Maybe then they would get the hint.  But lets get honest here.  The abc debate was ment to put bullets in McCains gun.  Moreover, at this point it will take a few more bullets to take Obama down that Clinton and the debate reflected that. 

by erik mouse (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 106 comments) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:24:26 PM

  (0+)

     Personally, I believe the die is cast. We are deluded if we think the dems or anyone INSIDE can get the debates back. However Rob, you here, with OpEd can make an inroad.

     You have no doubt tried (?) but what about interviewing The 3 RIGHT HERE on your forum. Together. Invite em all. Ask them the stuff you and so many of us care about. Will they come? Doubt it. If they don't you can pound that fact onto the net too. Tell em that. But, that is what it'll take to get the debates back. Squeaky wheel.

     Is OpEd big enough to make a dent? Let's find out. It can't hurt. We are about to be defanged as it is. Holy paradigm Batman.

     Use the same philosophy you used to get this freakin thing started. I'll send my measly 25 bucks when I can as I have. You bucked a lot of s*** to get this far did you not?

     I don't know but it looks like that ol cliche about if you want it done do it yourself is applicable.

     People call me nuts because I see baseball as a mirror to life. Well, baseball is the only game where the defense has the ball. WE HAVE THE BALL.

     peace 

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:37:15 PM

  (0+)

Love your line:

"People call me nuts because I see baseball as a mirror to life. Well, baseball is the only game where the defense has the ball. WE HAVE THE BALL."

But one can pitch, but a batter has to to show up at the plate and accept that you're in the game. I hate to say it, but OEN is just not there yet. I got an interview with Mike Gravel, but there's no way Obama and Clinton campaign managers Plouffe or Wolfe will make something happen with us. I pissed them off with basic questions I asked both of them, on Wednesday night. And they weren't even questions I thought would get them annoyed. They're spoiled by softball questions from the MSM. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:31:15 AM

  (0+)

You are singing to the choir my brother but here is a big AMEN!!!

by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:05:25 PM

  (0+)

Just saying, Rob, it is effort in the wrong direction to try to PULL strong enough to 'take back' or 'reform' or 'change' how the TV establishment behaves.

The easier effort -- which also gets better results -- is KNOCK DOWN the TV establishment.  Simple:  Stop being a paying customer.  BOYCOTT Cable TV.

One of the better results is that you have about (more than) FIFTY Bucks a Month, filling up YOUR OWN Purse or Wallet.

The image I like is from old cartoons, maybe Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, when the 'anti-hero' comes charging at the cottage door to break it down and the 'hero' simply steps aside and opens the door, and lets the anti-hero's OWN MOMENTUM, unresisted, go flying through the cottage and out the back door.  Of course, when it is Wile E. Coyote, "out the back door" goes flying off a precipice.

BOYCOTT Cable TV and watch them get that look on their face, hanging out there in mid-air -- uh-oh! gulp ! -- and then zzzeeeeeeeee-e-e-e-e-ng falling into the abyss of BANKRUPTCY.

PUSH the TV establishment over the brink.  Their own momentum is running in that direction -- higher cable bills, less diversity of opinion, absence of actual factual News and what's going on; overall, charging more for less -- stop trying to PULL TV back into balance.  PUSH it over the way it is already leaning off-balance.  Easy:  Close your purse.

AND, you get to keep your money.  OR, spend it where you can get News from, like internet websites ... I'm thinking OpEdNews.

Or, there was like the candidate debate that was on YouTube.

by meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 572 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:44:20 PM

  (0+)

I would love to have our pathethic "opposition" parties frame the debate except for one thing: they aren't opposition parties. They are, together, the "Money Party." This party keeps its vampire corpse alive with the constant infusion of cash from corporate interests that fuel huge campaigns. Who benefits? THE MEDIA EVERYONE. People need to connect that the CORPORATE MEDIA IS THE PROBLEM. They are the main beneficiaries of political campaigns. Journalism in the public interest, as far as campaigns go, has been abandoned. M&Ms have mediocritized our political debate down to the level of American Idol — bad theater meant to distract us from real issues. M&Ms do their level best to dumb us down and succeed pretty brilliantly I must concede. I call it a criminal enterprise but that's just me.

I do agree we need issues for debate laid out. Rob, I think you make that case that the M&Ms should not call the shots on the bad theater we call televised debates, but I think I would rather have Judge Judy run debates and not the so-called "opposition parties" for the simple fact that I question their honest opposition and impartiality. O.K. Here's an idea: how about opening up all broadcast debates to 3rd, 4th, 5th parties? Then, let's give them all equal time like they used to have with the Communications Act of 1934 and the Fairness Doctrine's equal time provisions. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich would have had a chance to speak if the M&Ms hadn't silenced them. They were able to silence them because we no longer have the EQUAL TIME PROVISIONS.

The PBS venue works for me because it is publicly funded! Hats off to Bill Moyers for let these two candidates speak on his Journal, but it is not enough!

If we really want to strengthen debate in America we could also follow Granny D's advice and stregthen public financing efforts so platforms drive campaigns, not corporate money for the "opposition" candidates.

Ever since Reagan threw the baby out with the bathwater by deep-sixing the Fairness Doctrine and it's equal time provisions in 1986; and then with the passage of Clinton's Telco Act of 1996, which further consolidated corporate media multinationals, our media is the least diversified it has ever been and has behaved in the most FASCIST way, ever. Remember how the M&Ms sexed-up the war and those hollywood-style promo's for the war in Iraq?

Our commissioned five-member FCC, imbalanced by crony chief Kevin Martin is impotent and incompetent by design. Now what does the American media dollar pay for? (Cable and satellite is not FREE): Hatespeak from viscious right wing pundits (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity. O'Reilly, Savage, Beck, take your pick) whose hatespeak rhetoric is broadcast widely over fewer, terrestrial and otherwise, corporate media outlets that dominate our airwaves (yes, they do, belong to us). This is where your campaign contribution goes my friends. This is why campaigns cost so much. This is why it is so important to protect Net Neutrality. This is why it is so important to support your Local Low Power FM and Community Broadband advocacy group. This is why it is so important to support OpEdNews. Let's put the M&Ms, the FCC and the Congress on notice by framing the issues for them. Let's bust up big media and give back to local control.

OpEdNews is so key because OpEdNews frames the debate in America using the new media, our last frontier in free speech, the Internet. If you haven't sent OpEdNews money yet, please consider doing so. The writers on OpEdNews are all more important than we realize. Be the media. Be the voice M&Ms cannot silence and let's keep defining the issues and framing the American debate!

by Victrola (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 19 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:31:55 PM

  (0+)

If you want fair and open debates will real questions asked, put the League of Women Voters in Charge.

by Anton Grambihler (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 314 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:22:08 PM

  (0+)

Why waste time watching the issueless debates when you can catch up on the content of them in about 10 minutes on the internet.

There is no substance to the media and it's not likely to start having any.  It's far easier for them to just keep creating meaningless sound bytes and focusing on non-issues then to really open up the discussion.  Besides, any change would be voluntary and temporary unless the airwaves were taken back and reformed, they need to be put back in the commons and we need to strengthen public oversight including mandated airtime and access for real debates run by non-profits that have some integrity.

For now, turn off, unplug, cancel your cable - be creative and strengthen new and more creative ways for people to get information and participate in the national discourse.  

Main Stream Media - so last year...  

by August Adams (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 585 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 7:45:26 PM

  (0+)

   I have written about this since the beginning of the primaries. Why can't we get candidates to debate on a "blog" format. Pick a site to moderate. The moderating site would post a question, and the candidates have 3 days to answer. The candidates would be able to post links backing up their claims. Since it would be documented, they wouldn't be able to deny saying something or use the distance of time to dim the memory of their words. Moderators could allow questions from the public to be posed in response to their answers.

Of course there would not be any way to assure that the candidates themselves were answering the questions. But they would be held responsible for the answers. Each candidate will eventually have a cabinet answering questions on different policies for them anyway.

I did a better job of explaining it here http://logicandpolitics.blogspot.com/2007/07/how-about-this-as-debate-format.html

Couple this with having voters answer questions about how they feel about the issues instead of voting for a specific candidate, and we can fix America. Maybe.

by Dwight Black (16 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:58:49 PM

  (0+)

Someone please notify Rob Kall that an article has been posted on my site that he needs to look into at his earliet possible convenience.

I consider this to be urgent. I haven't been able to reach him.

Thanks,

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:31:58 PM

  (0+)

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 760 comments [119 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 19, 2008 at 6:51:03 AM

  (0+)

Watching the endless debates this winter, I have wondered many times why journalists, who are reduced to stenography and stereotypers by todays "news editors," should be employed to ask probing, insightful questions. This is like asking my 6-year old neighbor to evaluate Picasso in the context of 18th century European empiricism. Are the "questions" of Stephanopoulous and Gibson any more coherent?

Next time around, instead of pretty news readers, let us ask independent authors, academic analysts, well-regarded bloggers (like Rob Kall) and successful leaders of substantial not-for-profit agencies to dig into the issues.

BTW, almost any of the regular contributors to OpEdNews would have been vastly superior to George & Charlie as moderators this past Wednesday.

by R. Queisser (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Saturday, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:54:10 PM

  (0+)