Why are the political debates on cable? Is this a way to exclude the poor from participating in the elections

Question

I ask because I don't have cable and find the exclusion of non-cable customers from access to the political process frustrating and troubling.

all people DO NOT have cable, I don't
cable is a luxury

you can make excuses, but the truth is that people who aren't willing to PAY are being excluded from the democratic process

THIS IS WRONG AND IMPORTANT

Answer 1

I think the same thing. I don't have cable and I don't get to see to see them. Just today I asked that same question. I keep hearing about them on the radio and was wondering why I didn't see them. I vote so I need to be informed. Even though there is more than a year until the election, but whatever.

Answer 2

Right now the only debates are primary debates, that is, republican-only and democrat-only. I believe these are sponsored by the networks that air them, or rather the network that airs them is picked by the candidates or the group hosting the debate. For example in the Democratic debate that was supposed to happen in August, it was the Nevada Democratic Party that picked Fox News.

Post-primary presidential elections, after there is one Democrat and one Republican, are typically organized by the Commission for Presidential Debates which was formed in 1987 between the two major parties. Those debates are almost always aired on broadcast television, usually by multiple networks (PBS is usually a reliable one, their reporters also tend to be popular picks for debate moderators.)

It's possible that, since they need to prove their journalistic prowess versus the broadcast networks, that the cable news channels pay more (or charge less) to air these debates, so the parties go with them for the better value. And nowadays a large majority of the populace has cable so they probably figure it's an adequately accessible option. That doesn't make it right, but you should realize that at this stage, including the primary elections (if they are even held in your state), everything is run (and paid for) by the parties on their own because none of it is official in the nationwide sense. After the primaries, the *real* race is on, and we start seeing the multi-party debates and federally run elections, etc.

It's still a valid question to put to your party/s: why choose cable over more accessible broadcast? I bet their answer would be the value proposition.

PS: If you don't have cable and/or HDTV in the next two years, you're also going to be peeved in about a year or so when all broadcast television is required to go digital, and you either have to get cable or buy a new TV or a set-top box to convert the signals.

Answer 3

I don't think this is a conscious effort to exclude anyone. Never before in American politics has a presidential campaign season started so early (basically the day after the 2006 elections). I think the main networks aren't interested yet since for them it will be a money loser and ratings loser so small niche markets (FOX News, MSNBC, CNN) that specialize in politics are willing to air them. Once we get closer to 2008 I believe the debates will appear on the networks.

Besides, remember that given the ability to choose our own destiny, only half of us even bother to learn a little about the candidates and exercise that right. That's far more sad than people missing out on spectacularly boring "debates" 18 months ahead of an election.

Answer 4

I don't have cable either, I have bunny ears and I can get them...not that I would want to.

Even with most satellite companies you can purchase local stations which will allow you to see them.

Poor people aren't the only ones without cable...some of us just hate t.v.

Furthermore, they shouldn't have to hold your hand to get you to participate in the process. Every person in the United States knows there are elections. If they desire to be involved then it is up to them to do so!

Why are you asking if you've already formed your opinion? You can go to the library for free and use the internet or read the paper for information. Hell go to a bar that have cable and ask them to turn it on. All candidates would be happy to provide you with transcripts of debates should you ask their office.

Answer 5

It's not a way to exclude anyone from anything. If TV is what "rings your bell" then you will have that particular utility. If not, then you may not see it. The people who were questioning the candidates were specially picked. They WERE NOT a "real" part of the masses. Everything they asked was approved, edited and used to make the candidates either look good or bad to some group. TV isn't a true representation of real life!

Answer 6

i think that's a valid point... if they wanted to reach ALL voters, it would have been on network tv. i don't have cable either... the cable company where i live has a monopoly and they charge whatever the heck they want... and i REFUSE to pay 100 bucks a month for it. but anywaysss.. i agree with you... there has to be some behind the scenes reasoning. and it is very troubling. but, fortunately.. i find other avenues to get my info on candidates and issues.

and i don't buy the argument that the networks can't get sponsorship due to ratings of an early debate... you can't tell me that it would get any less viewership than shows like CSI:NY or the Bachelor 25 or whatever heck number they're on.

Answer 7

It's a matter of ratings. At this early stage of the election process, a small percentage of people are watching. The "free" networks are dependent on advertising and cannot sell ads for these early debates. They lose money on them, so they won't run them. Later, when the candidates are narrowed down, more people will watch and the "free" networks will be able to sell ads for the debates and conventions.

Cable and satellite, being subscriber supported in addition to advertising, can afford to broadcast these early on. In the case of CSPAN, the "government" cable channel, it is their business model to broadcast as much of this as possible.

Thankfully, you still have the internet to provide you with reseach on the candidates!

Answer 8

They already exclude the poor from participating in elections...

There are no bus routes to the polling places, and since the poor have been kept from learning how to read, they wouldn't know what to do if they got there...
Plus, the poor probably don't even know there IS an election, or why it would be in their best interest to participate in them...
If they allowed poor people to vote...
None of the candidates would win...

Answer 9

What poor? Did you forget that Reagan said the average individual income while he was in office was $250,000? Didn't you invest that wisely?

We don't have cable either. If it is ever extended out here we probably won't subscribe until it becomes mandatory.

Answer 10

the big question should be ;
how long it would takes to the American people
to understand maybe is time to stop vote for those want
manipulate your mind and also your life?
but that never happen because you people
are to stupid

so let 12 million illegal immigrants become legal
in that way our politicans they have fresch meat
to cook...