(Photograph)
Group photo: The GOP presidential hopefuls smiled Tuesday during a primary debate at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. The size of the field makes debate logistics difficult.
Elise Amendola/AP

In US's big presidential fields, who gets how much debate time?

Attention on 'top tier' candidates in this week's debates prompts calls for a more evenhanded format.

Page 1 of 3

The presidential debates televised this week from New Hampshire are generating, well, a lot of debate.

Specifically, the amount of time the camera and the microphone went to so-called "top tier" candidates, versus lesser time for lesser-known aspirants, is prompting calls for a more equal-opportunity format at this early stage in the 2008 campaign.

The complaints might be shrugged off merely as sour grapes by less-than-leading candidates in two very crowded fields – except that political analysts, voter-turnout advocates, and voters themselves seem inclined to take their side.

"The debates were reasonable, though a disproportionate share of the attention was on the top-tier candidates," says John Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, Calif., who watched them on TV. "Initially, it's of value to always give a chance to all the candidates."

Many who attended the debates, jamming into a glammed-up hockey rink at Saint Anselm College here, already have a favorite horse in the race. But for millions of Americans who tuned in on CNN, the forums may well help to form their impressions of the candidates, and the amount of camera time a candidate gets can work to subtly shape notions of who's a contender and who's not, some analysts say.

True, the sheer size of the field, eight Democrats and 10 Republicans so far, makes it hard to find a format that is both fair to candidates and relevant for voters. This week's debates allowed most candidates the opportunity to give only a bare-bones explanation of their proposals or positions on issues – even though each debate ran, without commercial interruption, for two hours.

"A minute or 30 seconds on foreign policy is a parody of what it ought to be," says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, who senses that viewers are feeling short-changed. "It's been more about the [CNN} anchors and reporters, and that's the problem."

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next Page

Get Monitor stories by e-mail:
(Your e-mail address will be protected by csmonitor.com's tough privacy policy.)

In Pictures
Fireworks: A party in the sky

ELECTION '08 Patchwork Nation
The American voter beyond red and blue

FISHERIES Empty Oceans Series
The sea is no longer so vast.


Daily podcast

Monitor Reports

Discussions with Monitor reporters from around the world


Today

Peter Grier

Honduras has two presidents, but no solution to the country's political crisis.




Making a difference
Making a Difference

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change. See how individuals are making a difference, finding solutions, overcoming adversity, and giving back globally.

Jeremy Gilley, founder of the nonprofit Peace One Day, talks with students at Cambridge Rindge and Latin High School in Cambridge, Mass.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff

People making a difference: Jeremy Gilley

This actor and filmmaker envisions that world peace begins with just one day of peace.