Rumor Has It That ABC and CNN Are Feuding Hard Ahead of Next Week’s Debate

Mediaite ^ | 10/5/2016 | Lindsey Ellefson

[orchestra]

For the upcoming presidential debate, the powers that be have chosen to go with a town hall-style set-up and two moderators. Those two mods are CNN’s Anderson Cooper and ABC’s Martha Raddatz and according to Page Six, they are beefing.

Specifically, each one of them reportedly wants to be the one who hits Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with the hard questions.

Page Six reported that sources close to the two networks are describing the D.C. meetings between both networks’ producers, talent, and executives as “acrimonious at best.” Here’s the full quote:

Getting the two networks together has been a challenge. They are feuding over petty things, such as ‘Who does each particular topic?’ Both Anderson and Martha want to shine, to be tough on the candidates, and not to be accused of bias. There’s a lot at stake. So there’s a lot of turf-grabbing going on — attempts to box each other out to get the territory they are most well-suited for … They are supposed to be deep in rehearsals — the anchors and their teams have met a bunch of times, and the atmosphere has been acrimonious at best, at all levels, from the producers right up to the execs.

Cooper and Raddatz can’t be blamed for wanting this debate to go perfectly and trying to avoid the fate of Megyn Kelly or Lester Holt, who were thoroughly dragged through the press when Trump deemed them unfair and biased. Whether true or untrue, those allegations were a nightmare for the hosts and their networks, Fox News and NBC, respectively. Given that Trump has already sown the seeds of discord by suggesting all future debates will be rigged against him, Cooper, Raddatz, CNN, and ABC can’t be blamed for a little micromanaging.

[tenger]

Right. 15 minutes, each gets 7.5 minutes. The other's mike is turned off and cannot interject. After 7.5 minutes instead of "your time is up," cut off the mike.

or better yet, 45 minutes of talking each. After that time, the mike is cut off. So they can interrupt all they want, nobody would hear it. If they interrupt while the other is talking, they use some of their 45 minutes.

[Defiant]

That is so common sense, the Republicans will never insist on it.

Another great way to ensure fairness, halfway through, the two candidates switch podiums, in front of everyone, grabbing only their notes and passing each other along the way.

[ClearCase_guy]

I like your idea of switching podiums halfway through.

My other idea involves blocking obnoxious interruptions:

I think the debate microphones should be set up sort of like a chess clock.

The moderator asks a question, then hits a button which shuts off her mic. This button also turns on the first candidate’s mic.
The candidate answers for two minutes. If they finish early, they hit a button which turns on their opponent’s mic. If they use all two minutes, their mic cuts out automatically and their opponent’s mic automatically turns on.

No “jamming” should be possible, by the moderator or by your opponent. Only one microphone works at a time.

[zaxtres]

Well when the question is what color is your hair? That is a hard question for Hitlary. Doubt she even remembers.

[Arthur McGowan]

What? No interrupting the EVIL candidate???

[Arthur McGowan]

Yes. Trump needs to point out that it’s three-against-one. He should point it out immediately, and frequently.

[Defiant]

Yes, maybe smarter people will be running the Republican party next time and can insist on these options, in addition to insisting on a Republican moderator half the time.

[Yaelle]

I think it needs to be back and forth. No one can remember a point to rebut that happened 10 minutes ago. I like my 14 minute topic segments. 4 minutes to get your major point out there, 4 for your opponent. Then 3 each again in turn for rebutting.

The reason why I wouldn’t cut their mikes is because seeing what their behavior actually is, is telling. Kaine came off horribly and I’m glad we were able to see it and count his interruptions.

[enumerated]

Kate McMillon?

Young, attractive, talented and a pleasant voice even when cackling. The only problem is she doesn’t even remotely resemble HRC - not her looks, not her voice, not her behavior.

It’s not McMillon’s fault either. It’s a total cop out on the part of SNL. In order to properly imitate Clinton, they’d need someone they could pass off as a disgusting dumpy old hag, and who could imitate that obnoxious voice, and they’d need to write material for her that reflected her obnoxious selfish personality and her contempt for the American people.

But they won’t do that to a female democrat - they don’t want to mock or make fun of one if their own. Their unwillingness to really make fun of Clinton makes it not work at all. My reaction is always: “THAT is supposed to be Hillary Clinton? I just don’t see it.”

Now, Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin, that was excellent! I didn’t like them mocking her and depicting her as stupid, but Fey perfectly captured Palin’s beautiful appearance and charm, and nailed her Midwestern accent and her often peculiar speech syntax perfectly in the impersonation.