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.