Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Media Barred From Second Senate Debate

From the Courant:

When WFSB-TV, Channel 3, announced plans to sponsor the only debate of all five candidates in Connecticut's nationally watched Senate race, station general manager Klarn DePalma said the event reflects "our commitment ... to deliver news and information to viewers in Connecticut."

But it appears that the delivery is going to be delayed.

The Hartford CBS affiliate has banned representatives of the news media - other than its own - from Wednesday's 3 p.m. taping of the debate that is to be moderated by national CBS newsman Bob Schieffer before an audience of specially invited guests at The Bushnell Center for the Performing Arts.

After a news blackout of 27 hours, WFSB plans to show the canned one-hour event Thursday at 7 p.m.


This is especially bad news for Knibs, and Ferrucci. This was their one shot at some real media attention.

What do you think?

Source
Lender, John. "Senate Debate On TV: Not Live, And No Local Media Allowed". Hartford Courant. 10/17/06

17 comments:

Shadow said...

Agreed, not fair to the third party candidates, and incongruous with today's cable and Internet daily news cycle.

Having said that, I don't really know why it really SHOULD be considered any less relevant for not being shown live, as it's not the Moon Landing, and there's no legitimate reason the news media should pay any less attention to it simply because it was taped yesterday insead of live today; after all, if no one has seen it yet, it's just as newsworthy.

Anonymous said...

This is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard. Channel 3 is trying to run a debate for their profit making purposes and not for the benefit of the public. Channel 3 MUST be taken to task. The candidates - all 5 - should actually all agree (without anyone trying to take advantage) and cancel the debate and stage their own debate somewhere else. Then allow all media (except Channel 3 *smirk*).

This act by Channel 3 threatens our democracy - seriously - this is not why they have a license to broadcast. That license needs to be put in jeopardy.

Everyone speak up!

Anonymous said...

the Monn Landing was filmed in a studo. it never happened. i saw the movie about it with OJ as one of the cast.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, greatest threat to Democracy since Diebold invented the voting machine.

Give it a break.

Anonymous said...

Channel 3 has been probably the worst coverage of the election, so it isn't surprising that they are pulling this stunt.

Yes, let's make sure that there is no other media covering the event, lest other outlets reveal any inaccuracies or biases in their coverage.

Anyone here think that Channel 3 won't edit the debate to 'make it flow better' or something like that?

As to why it is important that news be timely, do you think any of the campaigns will hold back on their spin? The idea of 27 hours of spin between the debate and the broadcast of the debate makes me sick.

ENJOY_THOMPSONVILLE said...

Unless WFSB committs to run the debate commerical-free, in the public interest, then I think it is an unfortunate scenario for the candidates. There are plenty of other outlests and entities that would be happy to host this debate.

ken krayeske said...

I picked up Ralph Ferrucci's tickets from Dave Ward at WFSB, and Ward said media could attend as guests of the campaigns. So I called my buddy Morgan McGinley down at the New London Day and asked him if he wanted to attend the debate as a guest of the Ferrucci for Senate campaign.

Morgan and I discussed the benefits of multiple candidates on stage, but he questions value of having more than two people on stage at once. I figured this could give him a feel for what a five person debate looks like.

When he realized that WFSB was demanding a media embargo, and that he couldn't write about it, he told me the concept was an insult, and he wouldn't attend under those conditions.

This coming from the same man who refused to let Cliff Thornton debate last Monday night.

Shadow said...

It's the same sentiment in the media that laughed at Colbert's White House Correspondence Dinner jokes until he suggested through sarcasm and implication that the entire system including the media convering the President in Washington were part of the same derelict and enabling machine, at which point the media tried to erase his speech from existence and would have actually been successful if not for the huge Internet story it became.

justavoter said...

If you want to put pressure on WFSB to allow the local media into the debates and also let them know you want it broadcast live call them now and let them know what you think there number is Toll-Free: 866-289-0333.

Let them know what you think.

brickbat said...

Putting all five candidates on the stage for a one-hour debate turns the whole thing into a farce.

Valuable time that could be used by viable candidates will be wasted by the ramblings of these two hapless candidates with no chance of even affecting the outcome of the election.

Divide it up for yourselves and see how much time each will get when there's five instead of three. It's a nice philosophical point to say they should all be there, but it really is pointless, not to mention a disservice to people who want to decide between real candidates.

Maybe whenever Knibbs and Ferrucci speak channel 3 can play a calliope as background music. Call a circus a circus; plus it would be more entertaining.

Anonymous said...

Good point brickbat. That scenrio's exactly why Rell's handlers wanted only two debates with the four candidiates in oreder to limit her exposure.

Timm Knibbs said...

The real reason for the long delay is Lieberman. He refused the original date of Oct. 27. That one would have been show later that same night. Ch. 3 is better for Ralph and because we are in it. Why not criticize the other networks for their exclusion? Yes we would like more media coverage but it is better than none. Why not put the presure on Ch. 8 to include all the candidates?
The only reason Lamont is a even being considered as a candidate is that he is spending about $9 million of his own money. Lieberman is only on the ballot because he is friends with the Secretary of the State, see http://www.independentvoting.org/activistcenter/Connecticut.html.
The process should belong to the people not the career politicians and the super rich.
If Ralph and myself were afforded all of the free publicity that even Schlesinger gets Alan would most likely finish a distant fifth in this race.

Genghis Conn said...

Good luck tomorrow, Tim. We'll be watching Thursday.

Anonymous said...

Why isn't Mertens debating?

Shadow said...

UPDATE: According to various sources, the media ban on this debate has now been lifted.

Good news for democracy.

brickbat said...

"The only reason Lamont is even being considered as a candidate is that he is spending about $9 million."

Um, hello? Maybe the reason is that he's the nominee of one of the two major parties.

Shadow said...

Actually, brickbat, I believe Tim's point was that Lamont never would have been considered for the Democratic nomination without his personal fortune, and consequently he never would have gotten to where he is today. That is a sad truth of American politics, and one we all need to change.

I'm saying all this as a supporter of Lamont, by the way, not Ferrucci. Nonetheless, everything Tim said in his post is true, and Ferrucci - despite the fact that I think he is the biggest threat to my preferred candidate - deserves to speak at the debate in a free and democratic society. Period.