Butrflynet wrote:Sounds like it is way past time that the whole presidential debate process went back to the League of Women voters.
Now, there's the smart idea!
In a CNN show I saw yesterday, the show host was interviewing Wolf Blitzer about the debate. She said, "I noticed that people were lining up to get your autograph while the candidates were just talking to each other." Wolf tried to look humble and didn't succeed because the spotlight was shining where it ought to shine, on him.
That's true for almost all of these people. They have million dollar contracts which, if their ratings drop too far, are at risk. They enjoy enormous perks in social status and celebrity, equally at risk if ratings fall. Their job is to be an authoritative and interesting personality who viewers will tune to.
And their bosses, the networks, have ratings as a foremost task so that advertisers will buy time blocks for advertising. To a great extent, this determines format and questions. Serious boat-rocking will be quickly ruled out in order to hew a cliched middle way which hopefully won't bring about negative blowback from unhappy viewers/consumers of advertisers' products.
To be fair, Fox stands somewhat outside this paradigm because its apparent fundamental function isn't turning a profit but rather functioning (along with other News Corp entitites) as a vehicle to facilitate Murdoch's corporate designs. At least two other major media holdings, The Weekly Standard and The New York Post operate at an on-going financial loss.
