Did sunday nights democratic debate have a time bias?

Question

They say some people don't have a chance of winning...is it because their not rich enough or because Wolf Blitzer doesn't want them to talk? Here is a chart that shows the times of candidates talking times. How can you have a winner of a debate if everyone isn't given somewhat equal talking time? http://chrisdodd.com/nh_debate/chart.jpg

Answer 1

Just like Mike Gravel or was it Dodd that said during the interviews on C-Span afterward that the media plays a big part in who the front-runners of the campaigns are... they donate $$, and then base the polls for who those front runners are on how much their campaigns have made. How bias is that? Very. I think, after watching the debate, that I would have said that Joe Biden or Mike Gravel or Dodd were equal winners. I liked what they had to say. Hillary, Barak, and Bill Richardson talked in circles and restated what the other had said. They were given the most time and had the least to say. Those that were not given an equal opportunity had the most to say and should have been sitting in the middle of the stage. But the "SHEEP" of this country... those who only know who is running because they are on the television every night, will only vote for them because of the exposure.

Wolff Blitzer was a bit rude... cutting a few people off too soon. Isnt' that what a debate is about... candidates being able to "debate" the questions with other candidates?

I'm not too crazy about any of the Dems this election. I'm excited for the debate tonight... should be a good one.

RON PAUL 2008

Answer 2

Yes, I noticed that on health care, Edwards/Obama/Clinton were given lots of time to talk. Dodd/Richardson/Kucinich were given very little time, Biden and Gravel didn't even get to weigh in.

Ideally all candidates would be given the same amount of time, but realistically I'm not surprised that they weren't. Frankly the debates are simply too short and this forces short answers (even just hand raising) and disproportionate talking time. I do want to hear in detail what the 3 candidates with a real shot of winning have to say. I'd like to hear the ideas of the other guys, but since they don't have a shot at taking the nomination I don't need to hear as much detail from them, so I think that aspect is reasonable.

What they really need to do is make the debates longer though.

Answer 3

Absolutely. I've seen that chart already, but even without it it was blatantly obvious that the top-tier candidates got much more time than the others.

I wrote to CNN the minute the debate was over and complained. I was very disappointed. I thought MSNBC did a bad job, but CNN raised the bias-bar quite a bit.

Wolf Blitzer has always been a moron, but he out-did himself that night.

Answer 4

The entire setup clearly had a bias, starting with putting the three top candidates together in the center of the stage. It was clearly designed to be a debate between them, with the others getting only token notice.

I believe that CNN, which staged the Sunday debate, is also staging tonight's GOP debate. The longshot candidates in that field have ample warning of how they're going to be treated. it will be interesting to see how they respond.

Answer 5

Of course there is. It is a known fact that the front runners are going to get the most time. They have the highest poll numbers and also the most money to get their name out there. Gravel is 103 and chances are he wont be in the race much longer so why pay attention to him (btw, that is the thinking on the media, not myself specifically).

Answer 6

You are so right. Supporters of the three front runners -- so called -- must have been thrilled by the split of time. Everybody else is stuck with seconds.