Leaders Debates

“How can it be that we grant TV networks control over what is arguably a defining moment in any election campaign? Above all, leaders’ debates should serve the public interest, by being informative, fair and a way to pique campaign curiosity in Canadians. The TV networks do not exist to serve public interest – they exist to make money”

This quote from the article at http://www.camillelabchuk.ca/ pretty much sums it up, how can we allow the “consortium” decide who can and cannot put their point of view before the public in what is often a defining moment in a election. The choices of who to include (particularly when it comes to emerging partys) is a difficult one, but to allow the broadcaster to arbitrarily make that determination is, in my view, clearly wrong.

Here is Camille’s full article which includes links to the CSD report.


I’ve been awaiting the Tom Axworthy/Centre for the Study of Democracy (CSD) study on the televised leaders’ debates for some time, and was pleased to see it finally released yesterday. It’s been clear for several election cycles that the leaders’ debates need tweaking. Canadian outrage over the long-time exclusion of the Greens reached a boiling point in 2008, when public pressure propelled Elizabeth May into the debates after the Conservatives, NDP and broadcast consortium conspired to keep her out. This was a happy ending, but it raises critical questions over debate fairness, including transparency, who controls the leaders’ debates, who participates, and the format.

As the CSD study notes, debates are virtually the only unregulated aspect of the election cycle — it’s the wild, wild west as far as rules go. Participation, format, focus and other issues are discussed behind closed doors by the mysterious and ominous-sounding Broadcast Consortium. How can it be that we grant TV networks control over what is arguably a defining moment in any election campaign? Above all, leaders’ debates should serve the public interest, by being informative, fair and a way to pique campaign curiosity in Canadians. The TV networks do not exist to serve public interest – they exist to make money, and this bias became apparent in 2008, when they scheduled our leaders’ debate to coincide with the American VP debate, so as to minimize loss in ad revenue. The CSD concludes, and I strongly agree, that control over the debates be wrested from the consortium and given to an independent, transparent and accountable debates commission, as is the case in nearly every other jurisdiction.

The only CSD recommendation with which I take issue is that the Bloc be barred from the English debate, as they don’t run in a majority of English-speaking ridings. Perhaps my views are shaped by the long and hard battle we Greens waged for debate inclusion, but I would tend to err on the side of having more voices at the debate table — not fewer.
At any rate, Canada is long overdue for a review of our leaders’ debates, and I encourage parliamentarians to introduce legislation brining these debates under the umbrella of the Elections Act.

It’s time to take the power back from the biased and secretive TV networks and ensure the debates truly serve the electorate in a way I think we all would like them to.
.......................................

If a broadcaster donates broadcast time to SELECTED partys during an election period is that not a donation of goods and services that should be declared by those partys as such? Just asking! Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers