Watching a spot on SNL impression of John Kerry’s note taking and facial expression during Bush’s speeches got me thinking- What’s the deal with the presidential debate rule about keeping the camera on one candidate while he is speaking (which both CNN and Fox broke)? Is it simply an etiquette thing, or did its makers understand the impact selective diting might have? And how was it, as well as the other rules involving the televised debate, established? And by whom?
(oh I am so embarrassed- could a mod please correct that spelling mistake?- and in the title! No more late night posts)
Representative from the two campaigns negotiated everything, or at least that is my understanding. I am so glad that Fox and CNN decided not to go along with the agreement.
I watched the entire debate on C-Span and highly recommend it. There was no selective editing other than to shoot Bush at an angle that made him look as tall as Kerry. For the entire debate they were shown side by side on a split screen.
I could watch the faces of both candidates at all times. That opportunity was very revealing. I would have missed a lot if I had seen only the candidate speaking.
I, too, am glad I could watch it split-screen and be able to see both candidates.
I nearly fell off the couch laughing when I realized they had adjusted camera angles to make both candidates look the same height.
What I don’t understand is how the two campaigns hoped to make the networks abide by the agreement when they (the networks) were apparently not a party to it.
Basically the campaigns each agreed not to show reaction shots, but they forgot that they weren’t the guys who actually pointed the cameras? 
As I understand it the networks’ position was that they weren’t a party to the agreement and had no voice in the negotiations and so weren’t bound by it.
Right. So why bother having an agreement? Were the campaigns naive enough to think the networks would just agree to do what they told them too?
OK, I can see why they might have thought that. But still.
I am afraid next time around one or both of the campaigns are going to insist on control of the cameras too as a condition to the debates.
As I understood it, from the newspaper, the rule demanded that a candidate would not be on camera when the other guy was speaking. The networks did not agree to that, so everybody got the same six camera feeds, and they could decide which feeds to show the audience. I watched on CNN, which showed both guys in a split screen most of the time. The viewer could decide whether to watch the speaker or the reaction.
Who knows?
That’s politically hazardous. The first side to suggest that allows the other side to refuse and then use their attempt to control the cameras against them.
I think that cat is out of the bag.
The reason for the rule is because of the embarassing shot of Bush I during his debate with Clinton. The camera showed Bush I looking at his watch as if he had someplace better to be.
The campaigns tried to get the networks to agree to the camera rules and the networks uniformly refused.
I think the political stakes are almost too high for both sides NOT to insist on control of the cameras. Between Bush I looking at his watch and Al Gore sighing it is obvious that these unguarded moments can practically tip an election.
The political parties aren’t required by the Constitution to have televised Presidential debates. There was a long time in the TV era where there weren’t any at all.
The politically smart response is to prepare better. If these debates are so god damned important why didn’t the GW sycophants drop their obsequiousness and hammer him with hard questions during preparation? Or maybe the whole administration apparatchik really thinks they have done nothing wrong and can’t conceive of any hard questions.
Lost Cause No. 100456
But how do you really feel? 
#%&*^@!!!
ABC had the split screen too. Are you sure that the same feed wasn’t being shown on all the networks? There was one camera pool. I doubt that the networks were given live feeds from all the onsite cameras.
David, there’s a reason you’re one of my favourite posters! I did “LOL” on that one.
I don’t know what you mean.
Political parties aren’t even required by the Constitution to have any campaign of any kind for President. In fact parties aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution. However, TV debates are now a fixed part of the process and pointing out that they aren’t a legal requirment is futile.
True. Relevance?
You seem to think I have some sort of cause or agenda here, and that it is futile of me to advocate it. If I were espousing a return to the days before we had Presidential debates you would be able to say that was futile. It would be debatable, but you could say it.
I guess I have less faith than you apparently do in the purity of the current political process. In my view the political parties are selling a product, namely their candidate. They want to pursuade you to buy (vote for) their product rather than the other party’s. They are anxious to avoid any situation that puts their product in a bad light. We have examples from very recent history where Presidential candidates from BOTH major parties have greatly damaged their chances with unguarded gestures or whatever during these debates.
Every Presidential election there are negotiations between the campaigns of the two major parties regarding the number and format of these debates. They decide such minutae as the height of the podiums and the distance between them. All I am saying is that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch from the current siuation for both campaigns to decide during these negotiations that it wasn’t in either of their interests to have uncontrolled cameras rolling and risk having their candidate caught on national TV with his finger embedded in his nose up to the 2nd knuckle.
I can imagine a time when the debates would be conducted under tightly controlled TV conditions, and the networks could broadcast it or not as they wished.