We begin today's roundup with
Catherine Rampell at The Washington Post who analyzes the Republican list of demands in the wake of that awful CNBC debate and concludes they go way too far -- in fact, Republicans are trying to control the journalistic process:
Don’t be surprised if next we hear of demands for soft-focus cameras, bowls of M&Ms with all the brown ones removed and requirements that questions begin with “if you please, your excellency.”
By Monday evening several campaigns had announced they wouldn’t end up signing the leaked list of demands, but they are expected to continue pressuring would-be debate hosts to make changes.
And while it’s easy to mock some of these demands as petty and prima-donnish, many of them suggest a more insidious strategy: a concerted effort to extricate as much independent journalistic influence from the democratic process as possible and essentially turn the Fourth Estate into a bunch of stenographers.
David Graham at The Atlantic examines the Republican debate debacle:
The attempt by the Republican presidential candidates to wrest control of the primary debates away from news networks has, so far, mostly succeeded in highlighting internal divisions within the party. Whether it can produce debates that are more to their liking remains to be seen. [...]
And even if the candidates manage to achieve a rough consensus, will the networks go along? On the one hand, they are reluctant to hand too much editorial control over to the candidates and party. On the other hand, the candidates and the party are holding a much stronger hand. The debates so far have produced enormous, record-setting ratings, which they covet, and Brian Stelter reported that 30-second ads during the CNBC debate were going for $250,000—money that’s hard to pass up.
Erik Wemple says Republicans are going too far in trying to dictate the terms of the a debate:
Rather than a series of questions, this all sounds like the business plan for “The RNC Channel, Bringing You Debates the Way the Candidates Want Them.” Or at the very least, the document should include the title, “A Debate Format for the Ruling Class.”
More on the day's top stories below the fold.
Chris Cillizza writes in favor of the lighting round format lambasted by Republican candidates:
What sort of lightning round questions would I want to see? "What's the best book you've read this year? Why did you like it so much?" "What non-U.S. politician most inspired you — and why?" "Football, basketball or baseball? Which do you like to watch the most? Which do you like to play the most?" "What's the last music concert you went to?" "Do you play an instrument? Did you ever?" "What was your favorite class in high school or college?"
These are not "gotcha" questions. They are aimed at drawing out more of who these people really are — or were before they became "[fill in the blank name], candidate for president." And, let's be honest: If you can't name a book you've read and liked in the last year or explain why baseball is your favorite sport, why the hell are you running for president in the first place?
James Warren at Poynter adds his take:
All in all, it was a flight into the fanciful, even delusional. [...] And the insistence on friendly interrogators misses what several, including Graham, have previously noted; namely that whoever comes out of the party’s exhausting selection process had best be able to handle lots and lots of questions they don’t like if they want to wind up in the White House.
The more they get into the weeds of debate formats, the sillier they will look.
And from the perspective of most (one hopes all) of the media organizations who will now be lobbied, one can safely assume that most will listen diplomatically and then spurn all but the most banal of terms that will be demanded by the Republicans.
How can you look yourself in the mirror as a supposedly reputable journalism enterprise and agree to let the candidates choose what chyrons and banners will be floating across the TV screen?