NEWS: Moderators for Pres. Debate Refuse to Sign 32 Page Agreement

Moderators and television networks are refusing to comply with the 32-page agreement for the presidential debates. Networks refuse rules barring them from control of the cameras during the debate. The 4 moderators have also refused to sign the 32-page agreement.


Fox News Channel says it will disregard the rules for their cameras and follow their own judgement. The refuse to give in to the demands of the rules that state they cannot pan the camera to the audience or take reaction shots from either debator while the other is speaking.

Frank Fahrenkopf, Republican co-chairman of the debate commission, admits that it is not possible to control the network televisions use of cut-away shots, reaction shots, and other editing details.

Charles Gibson of ABC and Bob Schieffer of CBS, and Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill of the Public Broadcasting Service will be moderating the presidential debates and all 4 have refused to sign the rules of engagement for the debates.

Related News Links
NYTimes.com

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.