Fox News Declines C-SPAN's Request To Carry Debate
(AP)
Public Eye has learned that Fox News Channel refused C-SPAN's request to simulcast the debate on C-SPAN radio, as well as the opportunity to rebroadcast replays on any of the C-SPAN television channels. In the two MSNBC debates thus far, the cable network agreed to give the debates the added exposure through C-SPAN.
In an e-mail conversation, C-SPAN political editor Steve Scully informed Public Eye of Fox's stance.
As for the MSNBC and Fox Debates, only MS[NBC] has given C-SPAN rights (live on radio and tape delayed on C-SPAN.) Fox has said no to our request...and CNN's request is pending for its debates next month.(In a follow-up to the CNN issue, Scully added that he expects a simulcast/rebroadcast agreement will be worked out.)
Why does this matter? Think about the fact that MSNBC and Fox News Channel already spend a large amount of prime time painting the other as a villianous partisan meany. Keith Olbermann regularly chastises Bill O'Reilly as the "Worst Person in the World," and O'Reilly returns the favor by calling NBC and MSNBC "unpatriotic" due to -- among other quote-unquote reasons -- NBC News decision to refer to the situation in Iraq as a 'Civil War.'
With all that back and forth, there is likely a constituency of viewers loyal to each channel who refuse to tune into their rival. So where does that leave them when it comes time to find out about the political beliefs of the Romneys and Bidens and Pauls and Gravels? (I tossed those last two in for the die-hards.)
Pre-Memorial Day 2007 is still way early for most Americans to be getting plugged into the political scene. And while making a potentially large political event property of one network or another may help your brand, it also diminishes overall public awareness. Shouldn't we be trying to expose presidential candidates to as many potential voters as possible?
The secrets of tennis legend 
Some complain about too many 'third tier' candidates in the debates. But it was Ron Paul that made the last one worth watching. As H. Ross Perot did before. Once the third tier stop showing up, you may as well plug your ears to election coverage until the polling data comes out a week before the primary.
Do you really think the budget would have been balanced if it were not for Perot getting into double digits in the '92 election? It is really the third tier that makes the difference at this stage. If they broke the debates into a debate amongst the top three, and another for all the others. If you would choose to watch the top three debate? I bet you like to watch paint dry too.
Some complain about too many 'third tier' candidates in the debates. But it was Ron Paul that made the last one worth watching. As H. Ross Perot did before. Once the third tier stop showing up, you may as well plug your ears to election coverage until the polling data comes out a week before the primary.
Do you really think the budget would have been balanced if it were not for Perot getting into double digits in the '92 election? It is really the third tier that makes the difference at this stage. If they split the debates into a debate amongst the top three, and another for all the others. If you would choose to watch the top three debate? I bet you like to watch paint dry too.
Ron Paul said that the reason Muslims are adverse towards to the United States is directly responsible to past (long ago, and current) US policy in the Middle East. The United States must take a forward foreign policy in regards to terrorism and Islamic jihad mentality. The existing stay the course attitude and continuous speak of war is a course to further disaster.
Ron Paul said that the reason Muslims are adverse towards to the United States is directly responsible to past (long ago, and current) US policy in the Middle East. The United States must take a forward foreign policy in regards to terrorism and Islamic jihad mentality. The existing stay the course attitude and continuous speak of war is a course to further disaster.
Ron Paul said that the reason Muslims are adverse towards to the United States is directly responsible to past (long ago, and current) US policy in the Middle East. The United States must take a forward foreign policy in regards to terrorism and Islamic jihad mentality. The existing stay the course attitude and continuous speak of war is a course to further disaster.
Tonight's debate should be in today's event of the passing of Jerry Falwell, a major religious hypocrital circle love fest%u2026and, war!
Queue your TIVOs.
Tonight's debate should be in today's event of the passing of Jerry Falwell, a major religious hypocrital circle love fest%u2026and, war!
Queue your TIVOs.
No, let's keep this precious moments all to ourselves. I feel like each of the candidates is speaking right to me, about things I care about. If everyone watched, they might feel compelled to script their answers, and even, God forbid, try to control what questions will be asked.
Recording devices and GOP members don't always seem to coincide, it's their adage %u201Clie then deny%u201D. I'm sure TIVO cuts to youtube if relevant will be interesting.
- by mattcat25 May 15, 2007 3:21 PM EDT
- The GOP Conservative Republic Party Candidates have (and continue to%u2026) traditionally mastered the art of speaking mendacity and then completely contradict their own statements.
- Reply to this comment
See all 12 CommentsRecording devices and GOP members don't always seem to coincide, it's their adage %u201Clie then deny%u201D. I'm sure TIVO cuts to youtube if relevant will be interesting.