I admit, I was getting a little tired of all the presidential debates by December.
But now that the primary process has begun, and the stakes are much higher, suddenly I’m excited again. I’m watching the debates, plus I’m catching analyses on NPR, and of course reading Associated Press reports.
ABC, apparently not having any better plans for Saturday night than I did, aired the complete two hours of Republicans and two hours of Democrats debating at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. I found it all very entertaining, as well as informative.
I missed the Republican debate Sunday on the Fox Network. So did candidates Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter. The network said neither had enough support in national polls. Amazingly, the New Hampshire Republican Party actually withdrew its endorsement of the debate over this issue!
Paul was back at his podium with five other remaining GOP hopefuls for Thursday night’s debate in South Carolina.
But apparently Fox didn’t completely learn its lesson, because Duncan Hunter continues to be excluded, despite his third-place finish in Wyoming (picking up a delegate, which is more than Rudy Giuliani can claim so far).
Look, I know it was a little tough trying to keep everyone straight in the fall, with the huge fields of candidates on both sides. Our newsroom’s biggest criticisms during the fall debates were for the networks that didn’t label the candidates when they spoke.
But the media have NO BUSINESS making a decision to cut the field. It’s an insult to the voters and to democracy itself for a network to decide that because a candidate is polling lower than some others, coverage isn’t necessary. Polls don’t tell the whole story; just look at New Hampshire, where all the experts were predicting another victory for Barack Obama, and Hillary won instead.
(Besides, the campaign process will narrow the field on its own, as various people run out of money and support. Bill Richardson dropped out on Thursday, following Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and others before, and more will surely follow.)
If a candidate gets enough people to sign petitions in a state, he or she will be on the ballot. Once there, they all have a chance of winning. It’s not for the media to decide whether that chance is good enough to deserve any time in the spotlight. That’s not objective journalism, that’s interfering with the political process.
If candidates are on the ballot, they’ve earned their airtime and their print coverage. Period. End of story.

Posted by
Patricia Matson