GOP suspends NBC from hosting debates. What's behind big move?

Speaking time at Wednesday's debate was not monitored for fairness, according to an RNC letter, which charged that questions were petty and designed to embarrass contenders.

Mark J. Terrill/AP
Jeb Bush, second from left, is flanked by Mike Huckabee, left, Marco Rubio, center, Donald Trump, second from right, and Ben Carson during the CNBC Republican presidential debate at the University of Colorado, Wednesday in Boulder, Colo.

Republicans say they’re mad as heck with NBC and they’re not going to take it anymore. On Friday, the Republican National Committee announced that it was “suspending” its agreement with the Peacock Network for an upcoming debate in February due to simmering party anger over the way CNBC handled Wednesday’s debate.

CNBC had promised candidates that the showdown in Boulder, Colo., would focus on economic issues, wrote RNC chief Reince Priebus in a letter to NBC News president Andrew Lack. But it didn’t, Mr. Priebus charged. Among other indications of this, candidates were denied an expected opening question on financial issues, Priebus said.

Speaking time was not monitored for fairness, according to the RNC letter, and questions were petty, mean-spirited, and designed to embarrass the contenders.

“What took place Wednesday night was not an attempt to give the American people a greater understanding of our candidates’ policies and ideas,” wrote Priebus.

This complaint does not exactly come as a bolt from the blue. Er, red. The conservative blogosphere has been awash with anger for days over perceived bias in the CNBC questions, which among other things asked candidates to name their biggest faults, asked Donald Trump if he were running a “comic book version” of a campaign, and included a female moderator referring to “our cause” while asking about gender-based pay disparity.

But flashy debate queries intended to provoke and/or promote conflict aren’t exactly limited to CNBC. The first question from CNN’s Anderson Cooper to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic debate was: “Will you say anything to get elected?”

Given that, why has the RNC decided to take a stand now?

The candidates forced the GOP’s hand, for one thing. Representatives from a number of the campaigns were planning to meet in Washington on Sunday to discuss how to remove control of what they see as a chaotic debate process from the RNC’s control.

Advisers from the camps of Mr. Trump, Ben Carson, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen. Lindsey Graham have been organizing this revolt, according to Politico. Other candidates have been invited to join and were expected to send participants.

But the larger reason for the uproar may be the simple fact that debates have exploded in popularity and have thus suddenly become more important to both the participants and the broadcasters.

With 15 to 20 million viewers per episode, debates have become a reality show that has supplanted many old-fashioned methods of primary campaigning. A great debate performance can boost an unknown, as Carly Fiorina has shown. It can badly damage a pre-debate favorite, per the stumbles of Jeb Bush. It can simply replace traditional travel and town halls as a primary means of connecting with voters.

For low-polling hopefuls such as South Carolina Senator Graham, more speaking time at debates isn’t a subsidiary issue. It’s campaign life-and-death. Meanwhile, outsiders such as Trump and Dr. Carson want to continue to dominate, while limiting the time of potential rivals such as Sen. Marco Rubio.

But the networks now have huge incentives to produce the most conflict-ridden, dramatic debates that they can. So far in 2015 the debates have been among the most-watched non-sports cable shows ever. That’s money in the bank for broadcasters, some of whom are otherwise struggling to attract a mass audience.

That’s a recipe for institutional conflict. So far, it’s unclear whether the RNC will in fact pull its next debate with NBC, scheduled for February in Houston, and put it up for rebid with other networks. But the Priebus letter probably presages changes to come. When the next presidential cycle rolls around, will the parties just produce their own debates with their own moderators and stream them on high-speed Internet directly into US homes?

“The media would still cover the debates no matter what,” writes Ed Morrissey at right-leaning Hot Air. “Media filing rooms fill up with correspondents from all outlets, not just the one broadcasting the debate, and that won’t change in a presidential cycle.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.