Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Democrats Republicans Television The Media United States Politics

FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates (muckrock.com) 178

Posted by timothy from the your-complaints-may-vary dept.
v3rgEz writes: Wish that you could have tuned into all the primary debates without a cable subscription? You're not alone. According to MuckRock analysis of primary-related FCC complaints, that was one of the most common complaints, as well as allegations of corporate bias, candidate preferences by the networks, and general gripes about how corporate supposedly open debates have become. I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates More

FCC Complaints For the 2016 Primary Debates

Comments Filter:

  • Corporate bias? (Score:3)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:38PM (#51623319)

    In America?
    I'm shocked.

    Hint: the candidates themselves are bought and sold on the marketplace. They're rich fucks trying to get elected to better serve their corporate masters, who bankrolled their campaigns. What does it matter if their lies and their antics are broadcast on Fox or PBS?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by boskone ( 234014 )

      I'd argue the Trump and Sanders are the least "bought and paid for" serious candidates we've seen in ages.

      Doesn't mean you have to like them, but I think the two of them propbably are pretty free.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jandrese ( 485 )
        Sanders is pretty much out at this point. Unless Hillary has a heart attack and keels over at a $900,000 speech to Goldman Sachs she is going to be the Democratic nominee. Trump is Trump, and is looking increasingly likely to be the Republican candidate, even though his chances in the general are pretty poor. A Clinton/Trump vote is good for Republicans though, since although Clinton is likely to win the Presidency, the enthusiastic support for Trump is likely to elect quite a few Republican congressmen

        • I disagree completely. (I may be wrong though.)

          From what I see, everyone on the right absolutely despises Hillary. I do *not* see Cruz voters, for instance, voting for Hillary over Trump. They might be saying now how much they dislike Trump, but when it comes down to Trump versus Mrs. Benghazi, I just don't see them voting for her. Similarly, there's a lot of Bernie voters who despise Hillary and have vowed to vote for Trump over her.

          While I agree that this race will come down to Hillary vs. Trump (unle

        • A Clinton/Trump vote is good for Republicans though

          No, a Clinton/Trump election is not good, regardless of which party you claim. In January, Gallup reported that Trump had the highest unfavorability rating recorded [conservativereview.com], and yesterday Clinton's unfavorability hit a new high [freebeacon.com]. 60% of people actively dislike Trump, and 55% of people actively dislike Hillary. Those are 2 people who are both disliked by a majority of the country. That's not good. They are the only candidates over 50%. Jeb! peaked at around 45%, the evangelist Ted Cruz is at 37% unfavorable and

  • How about "I wish they were debates" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:41PM (#51623339)

    A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.

    • Re:How about "I wish they were debates" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by by (1706743) ( 1706744 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:55PM (#51623461)
      I think it would be kinda fun if candidates were allowed full use of their team during debates, and maybe even allowed to show multimedia if necessary (news reports, court rulings, etc.). It'd be complete chaos the first few times, but maybe after a while it'd get so that people wouldn't spew BS for fear of getting called out by their opponent right then and there, with irrefutable proof.

      Plus, debating is a skill that, in my opinion, is less indicative leadership than the ability to assemble a smart team.

      • I'd be happy if there was some in-auditorium fact checker, so when someone spouts off with some nonsense that has been long disproven, they hit a big red button that sounds a loud game-show style buzzer, and it also cuts the mic of the candidate who is speaking, and they forfeit the remainder of their time for that question.

        I think a simple change like that would greatly increase the tone and substance of these debates.

        • I agree with this but add to the game show buzzer with a mild electric shock. Not enough to permanently injure the candidates, but enough to stop them from speaking and make them experience some pain. (Of course, some politicians might develop an immunity to electric shocks, but we can cross that bridge later.)

          • The chance of inadvertently breeding a new race of electric-shock-resistant politicians notwithstanding, I like it!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Livius ( 318358 )

          Have someone be able to throw a challenge flag, the one who's wrong forfeits participation in the following two debates. Professional sports make this sort of thing work, right?

      • "I think it would be kinda fun if candidates were allowed full use of their team during debates"

        You aren't under the impression they are winging it are you? They do have earpieces.
    • A carefully controlled forum in which only positions on the issues the two parties like to distract us with are allowed talking time might technically be a debate but who gives a damn about it?

  • What with the usual bragging about a free market, neoliberalism and capitalism. Corporate bias for a candidate ? Neo-liberal version of capitalism. Live with it, or emigrate to Costa Rica, Europe, New Zealand.

  • Primary? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bondsbw ( 888959 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @01:47PM (#51623385)

    I wish there was a database to consult for complaints about the U.S. primary system, too.

    The problem with the primary system is that it matters so much. It wouldn't if there were more than 2 parties (and thus 2 candidates) that counted.

    To fix this we need to fix the US election system. Here's why that matters. [cgpgrey.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ormy ( 1430821 )
      Mod parent up for being correct and concise despite the link doesn't load any actual content. (If I have to enable questionable 3rd party domains in Noscript to see the main content of a page then that page has 'no content').

    • To fix this we need to fix the US election system.

      One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rsborg ( 111459 )

        To fix this we need to fix the US election system.

        One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two. This also eliminates the Spoiler Effect [wikipedia.org]. Unfortunately, open primaries are unconstitutional [wikipedia.org].

        Open primaries are not a panacea. You need to have more than 2 real choices, or those two who are chosen will just end up being the targets for the real bribes (arhhrm - lobbying - sorry, forgot my US lingo).

        You need single transferrable vote, or some other voting system change that eliminates the basic FPTP approval voting (Condorcet method is what's used by smart groups, though Instant Runoff is good as well).

      • One solution is to use non-partisan open primaries, and then make the general election a run-off between the top two.

        Thereby eliminating any chance for anyone on a non-mainstream party from ever holding office again. If you can't make the top-two, you don't stand a chance.

        It's also pretty easy to create a pathological case where your system results in the worst people being elected, so no, it isn't a solution either.

        There is nothing wrong with parties using primaries to choose their candidates and then the election being held to pick which of the several candidates that leaves. You may want to have a way in who the Repu

    • In the spirit of those CGP Grey videos and major election reform, CA has gone to a "Top 2 vote getters for ANY party in the primary compete in the general election" primary system.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by TopherC ( 412335 )

        I'm worried that half-measures like this do more harm than good, because they can create dissatisfaction with voting reform efforts. Get it right, and do the math. Start with replacing plurality / first-past-the-post with any other system. CA's system by itself will probably cause havoc because of the spoiler effect. I like reweighted range voting best for multi-seat elections, but would be happy with transferrable votes and probably others as well.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by TopherC ( 412335 )

      I don't see much activity on this front, but I like the material at rangevoting.org [rangevoting.org]. I wonder what the status is of current efforts to get range voting implemented in the US?

      They make an interesting argument that it's better to lobby for range voting than approval voting, because it's a little harder to repeal. The graph at the bottom of the home page, for me, is a shockingly strong argument. With the plurality system, we do not do much better than picking a winner at random. If we actually value democracy,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bondsbw ( 888959 )

        Agreed, I like range voting a bit better too. I would also consider the ranked voting methods. Just about anything over plurality.

    • The Republicans and our Supreme Court may well have destroyed the US's two party system by removing the constraints on political funding. The Republicans shortsightedly thought that they would be the primary benefactors of unrestrained political spending. We are seeing the results. The party no longer dictates the flow of money. Anyone who can tap one deep pocket can make a go of it. 8 years ago, Rubio would have been cut off from funding and forced to exit the election by the party. The party no long

      • The Republicans and our Supreme Court may well have destroyed the US's two party system by removing the constraints on political funding.

        The US doesn't have a two-party system. The US has two varyingly successful parties. The US system is the one described by the constitution (and to a certain extent the sub-systems described by the constitutions of the 50 states). That constitutional system is completely silent on the matter of people assembling into political parties and taking advantage of shared resources in order to get behind a potential candidate that they like. To the contrary: the constitution expressly forbids the government from

        • You have falsely convolved free speech and money. Are all bribe givers now merely free-speakers?

          Until now, money in politics has long been regulated: https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] . McCain-Feingold may have been an overreach, but the Supreme Court's resulting decision was extreme and not only struck down McCain-Feingold but also effectively killed other finance regulations going all the way back to 1907's Tillman Act. I stick by my assertion that we are in a new era of campaign finance and that we

          • You have falsely convolved free speech and money. Are all bribe givers now merely free-speakers?

            No, you're falsely equating running an ad to say you're in favor of politicians that (for example) want to protect consumer encryption products from government mandated back doors with somehow bribing those same people.

            Which mechanism for putting money into a politician's campaign fund do you find to be suddenly un-regulated? Or are you confusing your right to run an ad that says you approve of a given political point of view (or that you disapprove of one) with putting money directly into a politician'

    • Here here!
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Perhaps you don't understand the complaint. It's nice to know you have your head up your ass but it would probably help to take it out once in a while.

  • Diseased agencies (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The FCC is just as politically tainted as the Department of Justice, EPA, IRS, BLM, DHS, HHS, HUD, SSA, VA and the rest of Obama's diseased agencies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections. He still does.

    • Their man Obama benefited from the same corrupt media treatment in the last 2 elections.

      Let me guess... because he's a... millionaire?

  • If you can't afford cable you shouldn't be voting. Jokes aside, it's nice to see all the anti establishment fervor plus some of the old alliances ( the rich and evangelicals for one) breaking down. Maybe we'll see some real change.

  • Content should be accessible both ways (Score:3)

    by unixisc ( 2429386 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @02:15PM (#51623591)

    I have internet access but no TV. I tried watching the debates live on YouTube, and have only sometimes been successful. I wonder why CNN or FNC or the other channels don't either stream LIVE (for NON-cable subscribers) or allow live streaming feeds on YouTube.

    Content wise, they're being paid for it either way - whether I watch it on TV or on Internet, the channel is still getting paid. Even the carriers - Charter in my case - are being paid regardless of whether I watch it over TV or over the internet. I just don't see the arguments from the Carrier POV of forcing people to get a cable connection to view content that can also be available online.

  • Parties are private groups, not government (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @02:15PM (#51623597)
    At this stage of the game, the internal dealings of a political party isn't any different than the internal dealings of the local bowling club. People are free to assemble and do what they want on their own terms. If that happens to include choosing CNN to host their debate, so what? That's no different than a club renting out a church basement or local legion hall for their monthly meeting. A political party is a private association of people who are, among themselves, deciding who they might want to put forward as a candidate in a general election.

  • Can we have a Young Turks/Slashdot/Reddit debate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gQuigs ( 913879 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @02:17PM (#51623623) Homepage

    I'd really like to see debates run not by the 6 largest media companies.. They have a vested interest in keeping money *in* politics (because they get a lot of it!)

    • So do it. Nothing is stopping you from trying. You'll need enough money to produce it, and enough media presence to guarantee an audience sufficient to get the candidates to spend their time. Note that those last two requirements, if met, will mean that you, too, will have a vested interest in keeping money in politics because you, too, will be getting your cut of the pie.

  • Having read the article (don't be afraid to read, the article's quite short), the analysis shows that the complaints are coming from left, and right, and center. It even includes a bit of "conspiracy theory" about someone whose cable went out during two debates and suspects foul play. For all the ills of corporate-run media, the alternative is government-run media which itself has negative connotations derived from examples in history. Even the putatively benevolent PBS is considered biased by large swaths

    • "That said, an argument can be made that even free broadcast requires one to support manufacturers by purchasing their radios and TVs. "

      That high school education paying off for you. Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.

      • Wow just wow. It's called commercials - look them up sometime. That's what pays for content on TV.

        You can't watch OTA TV without a TV. You have to support some manufacturer by buying a TV, but you don't have to watch the ads.

        A more important reason why the "OTA" argument fails is that by forcing the debates to OTA you keep anyone who cannot receive the major networks from seeing the debates. I'm one of them. I get two PBS, two Fox, a CW and something even less mainstream OTA.

        Any argument you make for where the debates must be carried leaves some people out.

  • I don't know whether its legal, but I find all the debates I hear about in the news on youtube. In fact, I even can't subscribe to a cable plan, as I don't live in the USA.

  • Should have been ... (Score:3)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday March 02, 2016 @03:17PM (#51624131)

    ... on pay per view. I want to see a combination debate/WWE event. And watch Trump take on Brock Lesnar [dekhnews.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close