Media/Demo Establishment start spinning the removal of "lesser candidates"

[cryofan]

This is a "news story" from the Knight Ridder news bureau. It is not an op-ed.

Some excepts:


>>>>
Crowded field cripples Democratic debates
>>>>

Nothing quite like the completely objective word choice of the "professional" journalist....


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DURHAM, N.H. - There was a scene in Woody Allen's first comedy, "Take the Money and Run," in which a group of prison escapees wandered the countryside for days, unable to escape each other because they were joined at the ankles by a chain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gee, I wonder if this "news story" has an agenda?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But despite attention from C-Span, CNN, ABC, and MSNBC and all the auditions before the likes of the AARP and the NAACP, one national poll now reports that 45 percent of likely Democratic primary voters still can't name a single candidate. It appears the Democrats would've drawn more notice this year if they had reserved a lectern for Paris Hilton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

I think the campaign would be going great if the media would report equally on all candidates and the issues....

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Party activists complain that too many candidates crowd the stage;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Gee, I am a party activist, but I think there should be MORE candidates....


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Arnie Arnesen, a former New Hampshire Democratic gubernatorial candidate, saw it this way: "These debates have been worthless. Too many people up there, and none of them focus for long on anything. You know who the winner was this time? Kucinich. He got millions of dollars worth of free media attention - and he's going nowhere. The people watching at home, they just want to change the station. It's pathetic."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hey, Arnie....cram it up your ass!


THe rest is here:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7478234.htm

[Gloria]

1. It's not the number of candidates, it's the damned formats that have

been crappy. Why not just give each guy/woman 1 question specific question to address each debate and let them all answer instead of seeing Ted Koppel up there running out the clock with "process" questions?? Let's 75 minutes (less 15 minutes for commercials) equals a little over 8 minutes per candidate. 5 minutes on the subject, followed by 3 minutes of questions on the subject. Still not enought time really, but better than what's been going on.
In other words, a theme for each "debate": economy, foreign policy, healthcare, etc. instead of whatever the inquisistors choose to harp on. With one topic, at least 5 whole minutes could be devoted to a candidate's uninterrupted thoughts.

Debates are most effective when you have people watching who have some background so they can assess answers. In this case, you have a general public that apparently knows nothing, so a forum presenting views is better than a chopped up mess where a candidate has to try to educate the public and then defend in sound bites, all at the behest of these crap "journalists" like Judy Woodruff, etc. who are out to play "gotcha" and set things up between the candidates for that express purpose.

Once again, the Dems have fallen into a trap. While trying to get their message out, they allow the enemy to control how it gets out...

[roguevalley]

2. It would have made more sense and better conversation if they had

divided them up into groups of say, three and have them
draw straws when they would speak together. Have three at
a time for indepth conversations and rotate the mix so
that they would eventually all be together at one time or
another.

But no. We have a crappy format like this. What are you
going to do?

[tsipple]

5. Great Minds Think Alike :-)

Three randomly selected trios for one round would have been a good idea.

[dweller]

3. First of all, NO COMMERCIALS

So that frees up at least 15 minutes.

dp

[tsipple]

4. Braun (I Believe) Made an Excellent Point

If you look at the polls -- and they're not worth much -- the so-called "vanity" candidates are running better than some of the so-called "serious" candidates.

It's mid-December. Way too early to be complaining about a crowded field, in my opinion.

And, I agree, the debates are disappointing because they're not debates. How about some Q&A among the candidates? And why not allow a few longer answers? You could do one round of 4 minute answers in 36 minutes, and that's totally doable in a 90 or 120 minute debate.

Another idea: they could have flipped coins and randomly grouped the candidates in trios, then held three debates on three successive days at the same place with the same audience. (Just for one debate round.) Would have been very interesting, I think.

[Gloria]

6. Here's another example of why 45% of Dems don't have a clue...

I just caught a glimps of Kerry and wife with the banner blazing across the bottom of the screen--KERRY'S SLIDE.

OK, but how many times do we really get a profile of a candidate's experience or ideas? We mostly get the HORSE RACE, even in the general election. So, what "educates" are the TV ads and you know how totally off the mark they can be...

Have I told you how much I hate the media???? (to borrow from Mike Malloy's hate of "these people.")