Debate Coverage

Debates have changed dramatically over the years. Rules and restrictions have changed as well. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were “true” debates in that the matched candidates were given equal and adequate time to talk about a single topic in order to gain an audience decision on who won. Debates between two matched candidates came to a halt in the early to mid 20^th century due to governmental restrictions on radio and television. News stations could not give extended time to one candidate without offering equal time to each of the other candidates. The history of debates leads to the following question: Should this restriction still be place? Is it best for the nation to allow news stations to broadcast only the candidates that they deem worth covering?

To address this, we must go back through history. While the news restrictions seemed initially good for candidates, the plan backfired because few if any debates were publicly aired. Radio stations did not want to broadcast any debates since they would be forced to provide equal time to little known candidates. Thus, citizens were unable to here any of the candidates debate. Though the restriction was initiated because the government wanted to allow anyone to become a viable candidate, the results did not match the goal. If anything, the lack of any debates only worsened the election system because none of the candidates were debating in a public forum.

Today, this restriction does not apply and networks have a choice of who to broadcast and who not to broadcast. The result? Many more debates take place among candidates. True, some candidates get a significantly smaller amount of time on air, but usually in the beginning of the campaign all candidates are explored. One cannot expect that all candidates will always receive an equal amount of coverage, but that is because the media can be seen as gatekeepers who sort through all of the news events and decide which ones should be publicized.

My conclusion is that democracy is better now because of the ruling that news organizations can decide who to publicize and who not to – simply because more issues and debates get out on the table with this method.

Why does Hillary "mis-speak" instead of lie?

Journalists have the reputation of never leaving any incriminating details out of a story, especially when it comes to politicians. Every bit of dirt is sought after, publicized, and written about in less than glorifying terms – such is the relationship between the journalist and the candidate, where anything and everything is considered newsworthy. Yet, in most instances journalists shy away from the most basic and cutting accusation; one almost never sees in a newspaper a statement that a candidate lied about something. It is heavily implied, but never actually written. Why is this? Why is there a line that political journalists will not cross?

Take, for example, the recent news that Hillary Clinton “misspoke” about her trip to Bosnia in 1996. Clinton, in recalling her trip, said that she had to run inside the airport with her head down through sniper fire. Almost immediately, footage of the visit showed Clinton being greeted outside by ambassadors and children. In addition, every other person on the trip denied any danger at all. Clearly, Clinton lied and fabricated her story about the visit. Journalists covered the story left and right, yet it was merely said that Clinton “misspoke.”

Why is it that the journalists who scathingly write about Clinton other times only strongly implied that Clinton lied without actually saying it? I think it can be tied in to a problem that many candidates have. A political candidate often will leave accusatory comments to outside sources so his or her own reputation will not be sullied. It allows the message to get out yet also keep the candidate removed and seen as above making such comments. This might be the case with journalists. There is something significant about the word “lie” that most people cringe at. When someone is accused of lying, it brings into question his or her character and leads the public to believe that the person is unable to be trusted. Mistrust makes everyone uncomfortable because presuppositions about that person’s character are thrown out the window. When the person is a political candidate, mistrust is almost always a death sentence. The fact that the stakes are so high might be why journalists retreat from calling a politician a liar.

Another reason might be that the public would take such a statement and begin to mistrust the media. Most people already believe that the media is biased toward either conservatives or liberals or that media writes stories for economic gain. All three of these perspectives would only be increased if journalists began writing about lying politicians. It could be more harmful for the candidate for the media to continue talking about Clinton’s mistake in telling her story than to downright call her a liar.