It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2004 @ 11:22 PM
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.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The U.S. television networks planning live coverage of the presidential debates said on Wednesday they would disregard ground rules set by the two campaigns to control camera shots of the candidates.

And the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is not a party to the agreement, said it could not be expected to enforce strictures on network coverage of the four debates.

At issue are rules that bar the networks from airing "cutaway" shots of either Republican President Bush or Democratic challenger John Kerry while they are waiting their turn to speak during the debates.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

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

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 05:28 AM
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.

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 06:35 AM
So the press are allowed freedom in their coverage of the event.
Well that's a relief.

posted on Sep, 30 2004 @ 08:25 AM
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.

top topics

log in