Following the CNBC debate where there appeared to be a lack of control on the moderators’ part, an unwillingness to call out the candidates on false assertions, and many trivial questions that took time away from actual substance (specifically the candidates economic policies), many people expressed their anger at how these - Republican - debates are being run. Many of the candidates have agreed to go around party leaders and negotiate directly with television networks, so that ground rules can be set for the remaining debates. One campaign has even gone so far as to say that they are not ruling out holding debates that are unsanctioned by the Republican National Committee. Barry Bennett, Ben Carson’s campaign manager even went on to say that “he didn’t think it would be hard to buy television airtime for such an event” (FOX). Additionally, GOP chairman Reince Priebus decided to suspend a partnership with NBC News on a debate that had been set for February, but even that was not enough to satisfy the campaigns. This past Sunday in a meeting of the campaign operatives, they discussed the issue and were able to come to a truce, with a modest set of demands for changes to the format of future debates. Bennett went on to say that these demanded changes mostly were about circumventing the “Republican National Committee in the coordination with network hosts, mandatory opening and closing statements, an equal number of questions for the candidates, and pre-approval of on-screen graphics.” (FOX) Bennett described the meeting as being very friendly and cordial, noting that they all agreed they needed to have such meetings more often.
Despite this and the fact that many of the candidates dislike of how the debates have been run, Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, and John Kasich declined to sign on. This split within the GOP field is likely to continue, what with the candidates all fighting for position (i.e. more time on screen, or fewer minutes in the hot seat). For Donald Trump he wants to see the number of top-tier debaters cut down, likely so as to give him less competition on stage and more air time. Fiorina, who’s still fighting to stay in the public’s eye, wants for more conservatives to get into the mix (be the moderators), helping to allow her more air time and questions geared at her policies. On the other hand there is Ted Cruz, who got the ball rolling on this issue by calling it out even during the debate, saying, “You look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson can you do math? John Kasich will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio why don’t you resign?... How about talking about the substantive questions people care about?” (Washington Post). He also expressed that the questions asked “illustrate why Americans don’t trust the media”, garnering him loud cheers from the crowd. The next day Rubio backed up Cruz, in his statement where he said he felt that the debate was “a wasted opportunity” that was not only “unfair to the candidates, but also the to the American people” who were deprived of being able to receive the substance they need to have a solid understanding of the candidates’ stances.
Furthermore, even given these new agreed upon chances, the media companies that host the debates are under no obligation to adopt them, really leaving the candidates with only the option of boycotting them to get their way. This pushback is happening despite the Republican National Committee’s attempts to improve the debate process (after issues during 2012), namely in reducing the number of debates as well as playing an active role in coordinating network hosts/moderators. With only three debates remaining before the first nomination contest it will be interesting the see the next steps the candidates and the RNC make in regards to this issue.
What did you think of the most recent Republican Debate?
Do you feel that changes need to be made to the format of (Republican) debates?
How role do you think this issue is going to play in upcoming debates, will these proposed changes even make a difference?
How will the candidates use this issue to their advantage?
5 comments:
The Republican debate hosted by CNBC was actively disrespectful to the candidates. As a moderator, your duty should be to ask challenging questions to understand a candidates point of view, not to spout personal opinions even if they are based in truth. Most people saw this and responses were mixed. Conservatives, who are the most important people to the candidates trying to win the primaries, were not at all pleased by the snarky behavior perpetuated by CNBC. My hope is that they never return. Furthermore, if at all possible, they need to allocate enough time for responses to broad questions, rather than ask many questions and as a result few people get to say anything. The candidates, because of the poor moderation and organization of the last debate, are likely to show more of their renegade spirit and object to its terms, as Carson and Trump already have. We will see, by the primary, are more unified Republican platform under one candidate regardless of prior opinions.
I believe the last Republican Debate was poorly carried out by the moderators in terms of meaningless questions, disorganization and discrimination of airtime. I agree with Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio’s comments emphasizing the deprivation of the American people of a true understanding of the candidates without bias. The debates have certainly become more entertaining, especially when Trump is on the stage, which is beneficial to the television networks as it keeps their audience interested, but they may be acting too selfishly. The American people rely on these debates to keep informed about the candidates stances, and I believe that changes should be made to the current format in order to allow that. However, the candidates can easily use this issue to their advantage by blaming the portrayal of their weaknesses on the poorly carried out debates. In addition, they can each try to change the nature of the debates by capitalizing on their strengths or hiding their weakness. For example, Ben Carson believes the debates should be held in a forum rather than national television due to his soft-spoken, laid-back personality. In addition, some of his answers on the details of policy have been shaky during the past two debates, giving him even more incentive to avoid such open scrutiny. Nevertheless, citizens will continue to watch the debates despite the media companies' decisions to adopt the candidates’ requests, but it would be in the company’s best interest to provide what the American people and the candidates want to see.
I agree with Gursimar that the CNBC debate was the antithesis of a properly carried out debate. The questions avoided any matters of real substance and focused on personal and entertaining aspects of each candidate. As this was the third GOP debate I thought that issues of importance may finally arise, yet again the moderators focused on getting a rise out of the candidates and putting questions on Trump that would increase viewership. However, the candidates have also displayed a repeated incapability to even address the issues when direct questions are asked. On Tuesday, even Obama went on to criticize the answers of the candidates saying that if they were unable to stand up to the moderators how did they expect to stand up to Putin. I fully agree that changes need to be made to the GOP debates. Questions should not be coming from social media platforms and asking the candidates whether or not they have recently communicated with God. Furthermore, the debates should be structured to more equally distribute time among the candidates instead of focusing on the entertaining aspects of Trump and trying to create fights between the candidates. The debate questions should be pre approved and have a far more concrete structure. Additionally, the networks should consider further dividing debates so that there are fewer candidates on stage at one time. Candidates such as Trump will try to use the split in the party to earn more time on the air. Recently, it was said that Trump is negotiating separately from the other candidates with new networks to try and bolster his campaign. Future debates will hopefully be more focused on the issues to try and please the public and win back viewership.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/11/obama-republicans-cnbc-debate-putin
I agree with both Gursimar and Gwen in the consensus that the recent GOP debates have been disrespectful towards the candidates and the questions frivolous and unhelpful to the public. The only thing that these debates have been accomplishing is stirring talk (usually negative) of a select few candidates, most notably Trump, Fiorina, and Carson. A great opportunity to inform the public about the candidates policies has been lost due to the poor execution of the media. I find it interesting that these debates were supposed to have reflected the Republican National Committee's "improvements" that they made after using back in 2012. These debates hardly seem to be constructive and there are clearly more guidelines that must be made in order for them to achieve the real goal: to inform the public of the candidate's policy. As a result of party image already being so well established, there is a growing interest in the candidates personality more so than their policies. However, US citizens are nonetheless interested in how the potential future leader of their country will make decisions and execute their promises. I think this boycott is very appropriate and necessary because news channels need to realize that these debates are what is determining their nation's president; they are not just a money-making opportunity. I am not surprised at Trump's refusal to join the boycott however I would think Fiornia would want to attract more moderate voters by signing the agreement suspend the partnership with NBC, due to her not having as much traction in the polls. At the end of the day, however, I think there will be only moderate improvement in the questions asked because media is so concerned with putting on a show to get more viewers that they are unlikely to take the debates too serious. Viewers have described these debates to be "entertaining" and this is undoubtedly true, but not in a sense that will ultimately be constructive to the people and election.
I agree with the above commenters in that the Republican candidates have received shot after shot from the moderators, with no flow or consistent probing. With the past debate on CNBC, it was to a much greater extent. The left-wing network's debate was poorly run. The candidates and moderators talked over each other, cut one another off, and criticized one another. The candidates did a solid job of evading proposition questions about other candidates, and the audience did their part to make a commotion when an inappropriate question was proposed. All in all, the moderators never drew anything that meaningful from the candidates, and all we were left with was a bicker-fest between an over-crowded panel of moderators, and an over-crowded field of candidates. In the future, the Republican party would be greatly helped if their image can get a boost from the debates, rather than a blemish.
The debate really was kind of a joke. You had Chris Christie grandstanding like crazy and making a fit about fantasy sports, you had excessive tension between moderators and candidates, and there was a menial amount of value that came from the questions given, and answers received. This is going to need to change for the Republicans if they want to top Hillary.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/opinions/graham-gop-debate/
Post a Comment