FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com)

v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.

Comments

How about "I wish they were debates"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.

Re:How about "I wish they were debates"

[by (1706743)]

I think it would be kinda fun if candidates were allowed full use of their team during debates, and maybe even allowed to show multimedia if necessary (news reports, court rulings, etc.). It'd be complete chaos the first few times, but maybe after a while it'd get so that people wouldn't spew BS for fear of getting called out by their opponent right then and there, with irrefutable proof.

Plus, debating is a skill that, in my opinion, is less indicative leadership than the ability to assemble a smart team.

Primary?

[bondsbw]

I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.

The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.

To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters.

Re:Corporate bias?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

What's your solution? I know it's not revolt since most people that complain about corporate bias generally support an unarmed civilian population.

It's just a statement of fact. I have no solution, I'm not offering one, and quite frankly, I don't believe there is one.

Besides, the American republic has always been that way. It's never been founded as a true democracy. So I'm not sure there's anything to fix in the first place. I just find it ironic that the only thing people seem to complain about is fairness in reporting - a fairly peripheric issue - when the entire system is unfair to the core.

Re:Corporate bias?

[GLMDesigns]

You're right. The US has (thankfully) never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. There is a difference. The government has powers (and the problem is that lovers of democracy ... ummm... make that dictatorships ... want an all-powerful, all-knowing government. And then they wonder why things collapse upon themselves.

Here's an idea. Have a government that provides the basics: protects you from invaders and insures the following of agreed upon rules; and be very careful in adding extra responsibilities.

Now for those unfamiliar with the US Constitution the above applies to the FEDERAL government. If a state wants to provide universal health care. Fine. But that is not the role (or should not be the role) of the FEDERAL government.

Parties are private groups, not government

[ScentCone]

At this stage of the game, the internal dealings of a political party isn't any different than the internal dealings of the local bowling club. People are free to assemble and do what they want on their own terms. If that happens to include choosing CNN to host their debate, so what? That's no different than a club renting out a church basement or local legion hall for their monthly meeting. A political party is a private association of people who are, among themselves, deciding who they might want to put forward as a candidate in a general election.

Can we have a Young Turks/Slashdot/Reddit debate?

[gQuigs]

I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)

Re:Inconvenient truths the liberals won't address

[amicusNYCL]

The real problem that the Democrat and Republican parties are facing is that they each have an outsider candidate, who is not part of their party but just "running as" a member, who is either blowing everyone else out (Trump) or putting up a much more substantial fight than expected (Sanders). If the election actually came down to Sanders versus Trump there would be a lot of democrats and republicans looking around feeling like they don't have a candidate in the election, and rightly so. That's the conclusion to the Democrat policy of "more Obama" and the Republican policy of "stop Obama". It's not all about Obama, and plenty of people want to move in a completely different direction than where either party wants to go. You can still see it with the Republican-majority Congress vowing to just stonewall any attempt by the president to do his job and nominate a new SC justice. Congress is there to do a job that they are just outright refusing to do because the other guy is Obama, and it seems stupid to a lot of people. Or the dozens of times that republicans have tried to repeal or cripple Obamacare, knowing full well that Obama will veto any attempt. They know that they are wasting their time, and they do it anyway instead of actually getting anything done. The people watching that happen are the kinds of people who are voting for Trump or Sanders.

At this point it's not unthinkable that Trump fails to secure the majority he needs to be the nominee, it goes to the brokered convention, the convention votes to nominate a different person, Trump breaks off as an independent and takes 40% or whatever of Republican voters with him, the Democrats anoint Hillary, Sanders says F this and signs on as an independent, and then Bloomberg jumps in for good measure to stir the pot a little more. A general election with 5 major candidates, in addition to people like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, might be what we need at this point. The two-party bickering has reached a level that is no longer sustainable, and that's why Sanders and Trump are where they are.