Networks Want to Change Debate Rule

WASHINGTON (AP) - Increasingly challenged by minor-party candidates, several news organizations asked federal election officials Wednesday to stay out of decisions about which candidates are invited to televised debates.

The coalition, led by CBS, wants to change a federal rule it says could treat a news organization's invitation to appear in its candidate debate as an illegal corporate campaign contribution.

To avoid having debates counted as donations, news organizations now must follow "pre-established objective criteria" in deciding which federal candidates may participate.

The Federal Election Commission rule does not spell out the criteria, but notes that nomination by a particular political party cannot be the sole factor in the inclusion of a general-election candidate.

A federal agency or court "should not be reviewing the decisions of news organizations as to whether the public is better served by a debate between the two leading candidates or whether you should also have to include these five other candidates," said CBS attorney Howard Jaeckel.

"It's a news judgment and it's for journalists to make, not the government," he said.

FEC spokesman Ian Stirton declined comment, saying the commission does not discuss pending petitions.

Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, excluded from prime-time presidential debates two years ago, is keeping a close eye on the petition.

The FEC's action will let voters "see if its intent is to restrict debate to the two-party duopoly and their Republican and Democratic candidates, or to expand it" to include more diverse views, larger audiences and third-party challengers, he said.

Jaeckel said third-party candidates increasingly are challenging decisions to exclude them from the debates news organizations sponsor.

Several complaints were filed against CBS-owned television stations in the past few elections, Jaeckel said. The criteria they use when inviting House or Senate candidates to debate varies from standing in polls to public prominence to stands on prominent issues, he said.

He noted a minor-party candidate's unsuccessful effort to get the FEC to override WCBS-TV's decision not to include him in a Senate candidate debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Rick Lazio.

President Bush's recent signing of a new campaign finance law makes this a good time "to put this to rest," he said.

The new law leaves it to the FEC to create a new rule on debates or keep its old one.

Former Reform Party presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan said networks' campaign coverage decisions should be treated as a contribution to the political parties and candidates.

In 2000, Buchanan and Nader fought their exclusion from nationally televised debates sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Nader's lawsuit against the commission goes on trial in Boston next week.

The commission, founded by the Democratic and Republican parties, only allowed candidates with at least 15 percent support in national polls to participate. Nader and Buchanan did not qualify.

"If 100 million people could have seen me debate Al Gore and George W. Bush, I think a significant slice of them would have taken a good second look at the Reform Party candidate," Buchanan said.

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and a former FEC attorney, said the commission rule is not just aimed at major broadcasters. One problem is how broadcaster is defined, he said.

"If you open up the door, you could see a lot of organizations claiming they're broadcasters" and staging debates, Noble said.

The last time in recent memory the FEC stepped into such a complaint came in 1980, when it threatened action over a New Hampshire newspaper's decision to invite only Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to a GOP primary debate.

Those making the FEC request Wednesday include CBS Broadcasting, American Broadcasting Companies Inc., Belo Corp., Cox Enterprises Inc., Gannett Co. Inc., the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Broadcasting Co. Inc., News America Inc. and The New York Times Co.

Others include Post-Newsweek Stations Inc., the Radio and Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Tribune Co.

Finally, I see someone saying publically what I've been saying for years. Why isn't the federal rules of broadcast debate seen as an unconstitutional violation of freedom of the press and speech?

Good news for Libertarians (and other third parties, of course).

I read this the other way... it would be bad news for 3rd party candidates. The networks would be able to choose who they want to debate without regard to any guidelines. It is the current rules that say nomination by a major party is not sufficient in and of itself. So if a 3rd party candidate happens to be doing well in the polls, under current rules it would not be as simple to exclude him/her, but under the new proposal, the media could pick and choose who to have in the debate for any reason they want and thus have more influence over elections. (But maybe I interpreted this wrong?)

CBS which, with the other proClinton-media,
ruined the last Presidential US elections by misreporting (e.g. Florida),
now plans a Rather-Castro co-moderator questioning of US Presidential candidates.

Socialism and Communism and the politics of destruction will be featured.

[/sarcasm .... maybe ]

One of my great frustrations with the debates is that nobody is interested in asking questions for which neither major candidate is willing to admit the answer.

Social Security and "Gun Control" are both issues where the Democrats outright lie and the Republicans have acquiesced for so long they dare not try to set the record straight. I'd love to have someone ask annoying questions like whether the candidates actually know what constitutes an "assault weapon" and can articulate a reason why "assault weapons", as actually defined, are somehow evil (have there been a lot of drive-by bayonettings?).

If it's Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader sucking votes from ALgore or Hitlery, you won't see those folks in a debate.

If it's a Pat Buchanan or Ross "Can I finish, Larry" Perot sucking votes from a Bush 1 or Bob Dole, those guys would be draged to the debates by the media to help assure a win for the Libs.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.