We're talking about journalist here...they are just trying to protect some shred of their journalistic objectivity by not allowing the government to dictate how this news event should/will be covered.

They are right to do this. Journalists are supposed to resist things like these otherwise we dont have a free press, we have a press where the feds can tell them how to cover the story, or ultmately which story to cover.

This is mostly just cerimonial, as the moderators and networks involved dont want to ostrasize themselves by blantant abuse of their news powers to resist this governmental influence.
Yes they could and will "do as they please" while covering this story, but they wont be stupid enough to do something to gain the disfavor of any of the parties.

So the press are allowed freedom in their coverage of the event.
Well that's a relief.

I would love to see the candidates "unplugged" and throw out most of the negotiated debate rules, but the "static" camera coverage is actually something I agreed with. I am tired of seeing the news with bias thrown in and camera coverage can heavily bias the opinions of those watching the event. Cutting away from the speaker to an audience member with an outraged look on their face or showing the opponent shaking his head is an effective way of biasing opinion. It is done all the time. Is this news coverage? Perhaps showing the other candidate's reaction but why show the audience? I think that showing the audience reaction is blatant manipulation.