View Full Version : "Based on Polling: Ron Paul Should have only been given 4 minutes in CBS debate"
so I email a buddy the FOX news video showing how CBS blatantly tries to avoid giving Bachman airtime......
He's a coworker and Romney supporter. We banter back and forth all day at work......he sends me this.
Todd, Paul is averaging 7.6% nationwide and in 5th place, behind Perry. Bachmann is averaging 3.6%.
If you take out commercials and the time the moderator spent asking questions the 90 minute debate was about 60 minutes long. Paul was given the stage for 90 seconds or about 2.5% of the speaking time available. To be fair, he should have been given about 4 minutes. I don't see the controversy
I replied....
As long as people think that there should be a correlation between polling data and speaking time during the debate process then we will never have an honest discussion on any issues that effect us. It's very relevant. You may see the presidential election as a "popularity" contest....I do not.
You understand the role of the media differently than I. When CBS is actively deciding how many questions a candidate is getting they are directly trying to have an influence on the outcome. The media is there to present the truth about things...not to act like some fourth branch of the government beholden to the establishment.
Makes me pretty ill. :(
then it get's worse.
CBS is in the business of making money. If they base who they give questions on who they think will drive ratings, then they are doing their job. If it were PBS which is not for profit, that is a different story. Where do you draw the line? Should they have invited Mr. The rent is to damn high? Shouldn't he get equal time also? Your working on a textbook slippery slope argument.
I'm working on a slippery slope argument?
TonySutton
11-14-2011, 11:26 AM
Tell him that a debate is about allowing ALL candidates present to discuss the issues not about giving free air time to whoever happens to be leading in the polls.
KevinR
11-14-2011, 11:27 AM
Even that is over double what he got!
Tell him that a debate is about allowing ALL candidates to discuss the issues not about giving free air time to whoever happens to be leading in the polls.
Uh huh....then he throws in the shat about the "rent" party. It's face palms all the way in my world.
Are polls the right metric for deciding a foreign policy debate time allotment?
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/11/13/cbs-news-doesnt-support-the-troops/
asurfaholic
11-14-2011, 11:29 AM
Also mention that in this debate, on foreign policy, 7 of the 8 candidates agreed on almost everything. If it was truely a debate, all those who take side A get 1/2 time, all those who take side B gets 1/2 time.
Ron should have gotten, hmmm, 45 minutes.
angelatc
11-14-2011, 11:31 AM
So, he doesn't think there's a statistically significant difference between 90 seconds and 4 minutes?
And like him or not, Paul generates the most sparks when he's allowed to speak, so it's pretty disingenuous to pretend he doesn't get to talk because that doesn't drive ratings. We all know that every time he gets into a dust-up with another candidate, everybody tunes in to see the drama unfold.
freeforall
11-14-2011, 11:35 AM
So, he doesn't think there's a statistically significant difference between 90 seconds and 4 minutes?
And like him or not, Paul generates the most sparks when he's allowed to speak, so it's pretty disingenuous to pretend he doesn't get to talk because that doesn't drive ratings. We all know that every time he gets into a dust-up with another candidate, everybody tunes in to see the drama unfold.
I would even say that the majority of the ratings come from Paul supporters. Did he see the live chat and the polls?
angelatc
11-14-2011, 11:38 AM
I would even say that the majority of the ratings come from Paul supporters. Did he see the live chat and the polls?
That's a very good point. I hadn't considered web traffic.
klamath
11-14-2011, 11:40 AM
That right "4 minutes" not 90 seconds. I don't have as big a problem allocating time based on national poll averages but they flat out aren't doing that. They gave him just 28% of the time he should have recieved based on his poll numbers or just 2.5% of the whole time.
TonySutton
11-14-2011, 11:41 AM
Uh huh....then he throws in the shat about the "rent" party. It's face palms all the way in my world.
The rent guy argument does not hold water because he was not invited. Certainly each debate sets criteria on how to select the participants. That in itself could be a different argument but is not in this case. What we are saying is whoever is invited, takes time to prepare and stands on stage should be afforded a reasonable amount of time.
If the debate organizers inform the participants that their speaking time will be based on poll numbers and the participants agree to attend then I guess there is no argument but I have not seen that mentioned anywhere. Considering RP is not the only participant complaining I would speculate there was no talks on time allotments based on poll numbers.
still waiting for the response I sent him on how I was engaging in slippery slope. Thanks for the feedback. He is a genuinely nice guy....just thinks the way the world works is the way it should work I'm afraid.
pcosmar
11-14-2011, 11:43 AM
CBS is in the business of making money.
False.
People really need to get past this fallacy. The media is Propaganda. It's propose is to shape ideas.Not to inform and certainly not to Make Money. That might be true if their was anything close to a free market,, but it is not.
ALL media has the same masters and reads from the same script.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pl7sWtUu1Fc
Get over the idea that they are in any way independent.
WarNoMore
11-14-2011, 11:50 AM
Ratings? The other debates didn't have trouble getting quality ratings. Fox news got 6.1 million people to tune in. This was also on a Saturday night, the ratings grabbers generally aren't saved for a saturday night airing.
And I don't think CBS or anyone for that matter should be hosting debates if they are skewing the coverage of the debate towards specific candidate for ratings. How do they even know that will work? It's not like people know ahead of time what candidates will be getting more air time. And if people did know that, Many of the supporters of the candidates being screwed over wouldn't tune in along with many who were interested in an honest debate rather than an advertisement. Plus, Rick Perry is doing worse in many polls than Paul is, yet he got 5 questions and 2 follow-ups in that first hour(iirc), compared to Paul's one question and one follow-up. Ratings? lol.
I hate apologists. If he thinks his reasoning is so tight, how about these networks start advertising openly that this is exactly how they're going to run the debates. Think that'll fly with the candidates or the viewers at home? Idiot.
ninepointfive
11-14-2011, 12:16 PM
False.
People really need to get past this fallacy. The media is Propaganda. It's propose is to shape ideas.Not to inform and certainly not to Make Money. That might be true if their was anything close to a free market,, but it is not.
ALL media has the same masters and reads from the same script.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pl7sWtUu1Fc
Get over the idea that they are in any way independent.
ahh, the power of a Press Release. They're reading from those. Not that I don't agree the media is scripted by a puppetmaster.
kylejack
11-14-2011, 12:29 PM
The time without ads is 79 minutes. I watched the online version afterward and runtime was 1 hour 19 minutes.
Then we have to subtract out moderator time, and time spent with the audience clapping, etc. It was really stupid of CBS to try and run a debate with so many candidates in 1.5 hours with commercials, and then further reducing the mostly aired portion to one hour minus commercials.
acptulsa
11-14-2011, 12:41 PM
So ask the guy how Santorum, Huntsman and Bachmann all got more time than Ron Paul when they are all trailing him in the polls.
His metric is not only a poor excuse in a nation predicated on free political speech, it's also very obviously not CBS's actual thinking on the matter.
acptulsa
11-14-2011, 12:41 PM
Double post.
kill the banks
11-14-2011, 12:44 PM
we truly need to buy out one of the big 3 ... some rich billionaire in our constitutional camp needs to be proactive
we truly need to buy out one of the big 3 ... some rich billionaire in our constitutional camp needs to be proactive
He never showed up if you remember.
pcosmar
11-14-2011, 12:56 PM
ahh, the power of a Press Release. They're reading from those. Not that I don't agree the media is scripted by a puppetmaster.
Ok,, That might be one explanation.
Try to explain this with "press release".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RK7g8nGkF8s
CaptainAmerica
11-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Tell your friend that Romney is too busy getting all the airtime because the lobbyists are behind him and Perry
WarNoMore
11-14-2011, 01:06 PM
Ok,, That might be one explanation.
Try to explain this with "press release".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RK7g8nGkF8s
Nice. Always found it odd that these people had speech writers. Who exactly are we voting for if even there words aren't there own?
pcosmar
11-14-2011, 01:16 PM
Nice. Always found it odd that these people had speech writers. Who exactly are we voting for if even there words aren't there own?
You really won't like the answer to that question.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?330008-Some-History
Diurdi
11-14-2011, 01:18 PM
If everyone was given time exactly based on their RCP averages, there would be time left over because the total % of all GOP candidates add up to only 85% (due to "don't know" votes).
Thus, Paul's over 7,3% RCP average out of the total 85% is actually 8,54%. His real percentage divided by 60 minutes means he should get just over 5 minutes of time based on his RCP average.
(7,3% (Ron Pauls RCP average) / 85,4 (Total percentage points of all GOP candidates) = 8,54%
60 minutes x 0,0854 = 5,12 = 5 minutes+)
kylejack
11-14-2011, 01:25 PM
Supposing CBS News went by their own CBS News poll rather than RCP average, it would be 5%, which is lower than the RCP average. Still can't explain the lower candidates getting more time, of course.
One factor is that Paul is concise and doesn't always take all his time. Some of the other candidates try and jam as many words into their minute as possible, and even stray to answering questions they weren't asked. Also, Paul's fans in the audience take some time with the cheering and etc.
jbuttell
11-14-2011, 01:41 PM
what a joke, the guy thinks he's making sense.
Ron has been at 3rd nationally on several occasions and yet lesser candidates have always been given far more time. They just refuse to acknowledge reality.
klamath
11-14-2011, 02:10 PM
The time without ads is 79 minutes. I watched the online version afterward and runtime was 1 hour 19 minutes.
Then we have to subtract out moderator time, and time spent with the audience clapping, etc. It was really stupid of CBS to try and run a debate with so many candidates in 1.5 hours with commercials, and then further reducing the mostly aired portion to one hour minus commercials.
Actually some interesting points. Since I don't ever watch the debates I was basing my numbers off what other people had said the times were. Did you figure out the actual speaking time for the televised portion of the debate minus moderators and commercials? Is the 89 seconds from the televised portion or all of the debate? I really want to make sure we are not padding our claims. Because if we are, our whining and the campaigns whining is going to hurt RP.
Anti Federalist
11-14-2011, 02:14 PM
Actually some interesting points. Since I don't ever watch the debates I was basing my numbers off what other people had said the times were. Did you figure out the actual speaking time for the televised portion of the debate minus moderators and commercials? Is the 89 seconds from the televised portion or all of the debate? I really want to make sure we are not padding our claims. Because if we are, our whining and the campaigns whining is going to hurt RP.
IIRC that is the total time, 89 seconds, for both on air and online.
Seems that 57 seconds was the amount for on air time.
kylejack
11-14-2011, 02:15 PM
Actually some interesting points. Since I don't ever watch the debates I was basing my numbers off what other people had said the times were. Did you figure out the actual speaking time for the televised portion of the debate minus moderators and commercials? Is the 89 seconds from the televised portion or all of the debate? I really want to make sure we are not padding our claims. Because if we are, our whining and the campaigns whining is going to hurt RP.
During the first 60 minutes, Ron was allocated one response (30 seconds) and one full question (60 seconds), so that seems to add up to the 90 seconds.
In the final 30 minutes, he got several more questions and responses. The 60 minute portion aired nationwide, I think. The 30 minute section aired online, and also in some markets. I think they didn't want to eat into primetime too much. Most debates have been 3 hours, and some didn't have commercials, I believe.
klamath
11-14-2011, 02:53 PM
During the first 60 minutes, Ron was allocated one response (30 seconds) and one full question (60 seconds), so that seems to add up to the 90 seconds.
In the final 30 minutes, he got several more questions and responses. The 60 minute portion aired nationwide, I think. The 30 minute section aired online, and also in some markets. I think they didn't want to eat into primetime too much. Most debates have been 3 hours, and some didn't have commercials, I believe.
I guess the only way to get this figured out is to calculate actual allocated debate time for all the candidates and figure out that against RP allocated debate time.
Ok...I used some of the ideas here to make a cohesive argument. Thanks to some of you all for honing some good points.
If you think your reasoning is so solid, then how about the networks start advertising that they are going to run the debates this way? Think that'll fly with the candidates, or the viewers at home?
Paul generates controversy on his stances. If polling higher drives ratings, then can you explain how Santorum, Bachman and Huntsman got more time in the debate when they are trailing him in polling?
CBS shouldn't be holding debates that skew the coverage toward particular candidates for ratings if they are beholden only to investors rather than the public.
In my opinion, the media's role is to publicize issues so citizens can make informed decisions. Of course, they don't do this anymore.
BTW:
Let's talk about conducting a "debate". This was a 60 minute debate on foreign policy. 8 candidates, 7 of whom disagree with Paul. So, by definition of debate, you divide up the time between the two sides. So, Ron should have gotten, about 30 minutes.
His response:
Your just upset about how someone chose to run THEIR debate and they didn't want to hear from Backman and Paul. Also, I was wrong in my math earlier. Because the 90 seconds was in the first 60 minutes that was televised, I was giving him too much credit. He was given 90 seconds out of about 45 minutes. He was given approximately 5% of the time which closely matches his poor showing nationwide. Yes, the national polls mater because the last time I checked, POTUS was a nationwide position.
It's pretty clear he doesn't really want a discussion. but I'll try one more time....cause I like to beat my head into walls.
My response back:
I hear you Mike and the questions still stands......
If the media's job is to give more questions to candidates who foster better ratings...why not advertise it? then why did they give lesser polling nationally candidates more time than others?
I'm not upset just because it's Paul.......Like I said before, let them advertise it's rigged and find out if I'm the only one who is thinking this way.
CBS can do whatever they want....but if they aren't going to be up front and honest about what they are trying to achieve try to hide the issue, then yeah....that's a rigged game and people should be upset.
There's a lot more wrong with that argument than "math".
jtstellar
11-14-2011, 05:29 PM
his argument of corporate media doing what's right to make money is a joke.. if your show consistently manages to pick presidents that turn out very good in an informed country, chances are you will be praised and people will watch your show. not many will question how you allocate time. this instead is a public electorate that elected 2 consecutive horrible presidencies, maybe media oughtta have some reservation to base it on polling. if they relied on own arbitrary standard, it's even worse. when was the last time any of their 'wisdom' gravitated to reality. to base this argument on skilled 'money making' as if some coordinated sales team is throwing a pitch at informed consumers is ridiculous. it's more like two blindfolded idiots throwing balls at each other.
if media did their job, alternative media wouldn't be taking over. he's like a guy saying 'well this company is still here for a reason' when the balance sheet is already all red, just 3 days before it collapses. idiot? which job is he referring to, that the media is doing so well? has their company stock soared lately? i seem to have missed. tell him to stop throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. it's embarrassing.
Think my buddy is in an absolute tailspin since I emailed him the two recent Iowa polls. :D
I'll be waiting for the inevitable reply that he's not polling well Nationally.
Wolverine302
11-17-2011, 11:17 AM
The medias job is to report unbiased news. By giving more time to other candidatesis to show bias period. They obviously don't favor RP.
DamianTV
11-17-2011, 12:54 PM
Polls are conducted by Pollsters, and the MSM cares about its profit margins, not Unbiased News. Why do you think Local News Stations dont report on how much Car Dealerships rip people off when people buy cars from them?
rnestam
11-17-2011, 01:53 PM
so I email a buddy the FOX news video showing how CBS blatantly tries to avoid giving Bachman airtime......
He's a coworker and Romney supporter. We banter back and forth all day at work......he sends me this.
I replied....
Makes me pretty ill. :(
then it get's worse.
I'm working on a slippery slope argument?
You should reply: If it were really only about money and ratings then yes, you should have invited the "Rent is too Damn High" Guy, and had Seacrest moderate...But if it is about proving a trust worthy fair news station which makes for long term ratings and loyalty of viewership, you should be be focused on letting the low polling candidates state there case and challenge the frontrunners as often as possible.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.