Why is it Presidential debates have to be on every channel? I feel like a child

1. 77

   Charluposted 11 years ago

   Why is it Presidential debates have to be on every channel? I feel like a child being punished.
   
   Seriously, do they have to be on every channel? Do they think that we are not smart enough to turn to the right one, tape it, or watch it online afterwards?  It's as if I'm a child being punished who can't watch their favorite show because I need to pay attention to the debate. 
   Yes there are other "pay channels" that don't run it but how much to they pay to cover it on every major network?

   replyreport
2. 61

   Linda Cassiniposted 11 years ago

   At least you still have your cookies and milk...lol

   replyreport
3. 64

   peanutroasterposted 11 years ago

   Because an informed citizenship is the protection of a democracy.  Sorry to interrupt your sitcoms.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Linda Cassiniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      informed citizenship is extremely important...as well as laughs in life..please keep that in perspective also peanut...

      replyreport
   2. 64

      peanutroasterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We have a citizenship more informed by the People Magazine than the New York Times.

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Linda Cassiniposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This is exactly why politics and comics should not mix...uhhh where did that BIG bird come from lol...so you see politics didnt turn off the comics after all...lol

      replyreport
   4. 59

      Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      LOL -- "Informed" or  brain washed to think it's a big deal. When has an election really made any difference? The same powers still manipulate politicians no matter who wins. We need laughter more than watching adults argue and deliver false promises

      replyreport
   5. 77

      Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      An informed citizenship is determined by the citizen doing his/her research on the candidates they're interested in not all about debates (or shouldn't be anyway).  It should be on what they've done and a detailed look at  perspectives not tv acting.

      replyreport
   6. 38

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I can see both sides, but shoving debates down peoples throats isn't the way to engage them and get them interested in politics.  Heavy handed tactics never convince anyone - they drive people away, but youre right we need a more informed populace.

      replyreport
4. 68

   LilaDaleyposted 11 years ago

   It was on all our US channels but our Canadian channels didn't show the debate.  Glad I was still able to watch SVU on CTV and The First 48 on A & E.
   
   I don't know why it has to be on ALL channels.  They want viewership.  Which is dumb since not everyone wants to watch the debates and they would get viewership by showing their regular scheduled programs.
   
   Canadian elections go on for 6-8 weeks not 18 months.  They come and go.  New York channels show political commercials all year long, every year.  It seems to me to be a waste and just interject negativity into society.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Love your answer, so much "common and logical sense"  6-8 weeks just think of the money everyone would save and could possibly use for the hungry or education.   The definition of insanity doing the same thing over n over expecting different results

      replyreport
5. 59

   Neil Sperlingposted 11 years ago

   We are manipulated into believing voting is important. If voting was ever to really make any drastic changes at all, no doubt the whole process of voting would be outlawed. We are manipulated into surrendering our powers to the leaders.... Sorry , but change will NOT happen from the top down.... it WILL ONLY happen from the bottom up.
   War will continue as long as willing soldiers pick up arms and fight battles someone else dictates.
   Waste of tax payers dollars will continue as long as we let them take our dollars and spend it foolishly.
   Billionaires will continue to move our money around as long as we continue to invest in their stocks..... the list goes on!  Change has to happen from bottom up - not top down!
   Gandhi knew this and his movement proved it. Passive resistance changed things from bottom up!
   I'ld rather watch a re-run of Gilligan's Island than political debates.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Definitely a wow factor answer and agreed as I stated in another comment the true definition of insanity

      replyreport
   2. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      the biggest problem is that people like it the way it is. Some die trying to get here. kind of like the least of evils. Hey that is just like the debates ;-)

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Neil Sperlingposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      People now a days move to and from almost every country.... not realizing happiness is found inside themselves no matter where they are....still others die inside .. look to the inner cities on every continent and you will see cadavers still walking

      replyreport
   4. 45

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is no choice and no tranquility while the body starves. But the point of the question posed is far more practical. Every station is an exaggeration. But blocking of choice is a reality, as is the situation for most.

      replyreport
6. 79

   Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

   Your question took me back to childhood when there was only three television channels which would all be on the President when he spoke....ruining our evening of course!  Such is the state of the world today as it still takes all the channels to keep up the propaganda.  ~WB

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Conservative Ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I remember those days so well - ABC, NBC, CBS, and if you were lucky PBS too. We've come a long way!

      replyreport
7. 60

   Peter Leeperposted 11 years ago

   In my opinion it is simple.  The major broadcast networks as well as the cable news channels are in the constant struggle for validity...  For at least a few of the cable news networks, the debates are the only unadulterated versions of what the candidates are saying from their own mouths.  If any one of the networks don't air it, anyone interested in seeing the debates will turn on one of the networks that are airing it which has potential to make that person a long term viewer of their channel...I am sure that Fox news would rather air an old Reagan speach and MSNBC an old Clinton performance but we are stuck with the crew we've got...There is always American Pickers on Cable...

   replyreport
8. 0

   huckelburyposted 11 years ago

   It's always about the money. Networks and cable channels assume a large audience, especially when the debates are hyped so much. They therefore can convince sponsors to buy more time and at the same time pledge to their viewers that they are doing the country a public service. They don't care if you watch the debates or not. Forgive me for sounding cynical, but when each side in a campaign must spend one billion dollars in an attempt to get elected, the money must be the only reason any of the participants do anything. How many emails have you gotten asking for money? To repeat, it's America, which means it's always about the money. Television is just another player in the game.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ah Ha  I knew it would come out sooner or later $$$$$$$  Thanks and even though I figured as much, it's nice to hear someone else's opinions One billion WOW

      replyreport
9. 45

   Ericdierkerposted 11 years ago

   Ratings, Ratings and more Ratings in order to compete in the advertising game. I kind of hope that the ratings went down. Debating is an art form. Not letting someone else finish a sentence is rude. Facial antics are totally unprofessional and will get you an admonishment from a good judge or moderator. If ratings are based on entertainment value -- that was a bad show. If ratings are based on informational value -- that was a bad show.
   I bet that the debates would fade away if they were on pay per view channels. Did you notice the advertising was old and stale?
   I just can't see watching one man be rude to another.

   replyreport
10. 74

    d.williamposted 11 years ago

    It is an interesting question and has many points of view. 
    I do agree that preempting 'everything else' on TV is a bit over the top, but the apathetic attitudes of most people warrants some kind of 'in-you-face' presentation of what is at stake in our election process.
    If one watches the campaigning around the country (both sides of it and not just one sided views of their parties) then the debates should reflect a culmination of what the campaigning is all about.  And as both the debates so far have shown, is that what is said while campaigning around the country is much different than what is said at the debates.
    So, as lazy Americans, we think that watching the debates will give us an idea of who these people are; and that cannot be farther from the truth.
    The lying and deceit of the debates is appalling when their platform campaign promises are extremely polar opposites.
    I do agree that which ever president wins this election, there will be little change in American, or global, politics in the next 4 years. 
    What WILL matter however is who controls congress as to which direction this country will be taken.  Politicians have their own agendas and do not reflect the wishes of the people anymore; so it is imperative that we be as informed as possible when it comes to how we cast our votes. 
    If we do not know what is going on and vote blindly based on political party, or simply the debates - we all lose - and have no right to criticize when the elections are over. 
    These elections come every 4 years and our favorite t.v. shows are on all year long.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Ok point taken as to they only come every 4 years, but as you stated  the lying and polar opposite stands opposed to their campaign tours are ridiculous.  Although I have a huge interest and passion for this election I will be glad when it is over

       replyreport
    2. 74

       d.williamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Amen to that statement.  I am totally over it !!!!

       replyreport
11. 0

    Sooner28posted 11 years ago

    I'm sorry that choosing the next president and vice president is an inconvenience.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       Charluposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It has nothing to do with choosing the next president  I've done more research this election than probably all the others combined, but why every channel  Do they think that we can't find the right one or will watch them because the other isn't on

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       It should be on every channel.  That way, people actually have to pay attention for a little while, or not watch TV, and they aren't going to forego TV.

       replyreport
12. 69

    recappers delightposted 11 years ago

    It's the price we pay for having a representative form of government. We have the right to vote on who we want. Therefore, we have the obligation to pay attention when information that might help us make better decisions presents itself.  Now, the fact that both sides frequently spend a lot of time avoiding the question at hand so that they can go back to their pre-canned stump speech is another matter; I personally find it more helpful to read what happened at the debate afterward and get past the blather to the meat of the matter. And yes, I now know a lot more about all four candidates than I did last month.

    replyreport
13. 60

    homesteadpatchposted 11 years ago

    It appears they are forced to air the debates.  For example, the networks pay big dollars to air popular sporting events, and they all can't cover it.  If it were truly about ratings (and dollars), there would be only one network airing a debate at any given time and the remaining networks would be forced to fight for the remaining viewers.

    replyreport