NBC Wins Battle Over Debate

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that MSNBC is not required to include candidate Dennis Kucinich in its scheduled Democratic presidential debate.

The seven-member court overturned Monday’s ruling by a Nevada district court judge.

The decision, which came one hour before the debate was scheduled to begin in Las Vegas, meant that Mr. Kucinich would not share the stage with the party’s three leading contenders, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. The debate is expected to begin at 9 p.m. Eastern on MSNBC.

MSNBC had no immediate comment on the ruling. It will likely be described as a First Amendment victory by the news organization, as lawyers for NBC had argued that it had a right, as a privately owned network, to determine whom to invite to the debate. The network changed the criteria for participation in the debate after other candidates dropped out of the Democratic race for president last week.

On Monday senior district court judge Charles Thompson had ruled that Mr. Kucinich should be allowed to participate in the debate, citing a breach of contract by NBC Universal. Two days after a consultant for NBC invited Mr. Kucinich to the Las Vegas debate, NBC changed the criteria to only include candidates who had placed first, second or third in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries. The revised criteria excluded Mr. Kucinich, who has averaged 3 to 4 percent support in recent Nevada polls, prompting him to file a complaint on Monday.

The district court judge sided with Mr. Kucinich and said he would issue an injunction halting the debate if the candidate was excluded. NBC Universal responded by requesting an emergency hearing to review the decision. The state Supreme Court sided with NBC, determining that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction in making the ruling. Additionally, the court ruled that Mr. Kucinich did not have an enforceable contract with the network.

While awaiting the court’s ruling on Tuesday, the NBC News correspondent Kevin Corke explained the network’s position in a conversation with Tucker Carlson on MSNBC.

“We were expecting to have the three major candidates. Why? Well quite frankly, because those are the probable candidates. That pool is the most viable pool. And truthfully, most people want to hear what Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama have to say,” Mr. Corke said. “After all, those are probably the three they’re going to be picking from.”

Mr. Corke said he doubted that Mr. Kucinich would attend the debate. “I’m not so sure it serves the voters that well,” he said, “but certainty there’s a feeling here that every voice needs to be heard.’

Mr. Carlson responded: “Well as long as judges are deciding who’s on television, frankly I want a better time slot, and I plan to petition the court.”

At the state Supreme Court hearing on Tuesday, an attorney for NBC invoked the news organization’s First Amendment rights.

“Simply because you allege breach of contract doesn’t lessen the burden of the First Amendment,” Donald Campbell said, according to the Las Vegas Sun. An attorney for Mr. Kucinich said the candidate’s absence on the debate stage “would be detrimental to voters.”

Mr. Kucinich had previously framed his dis-invitation as an attempt by NBC to muzzle dissenting voices. In a statement last week he labeled corporate media control of information sinister and un-American.

Several recent quarrels between presidential candidates and television networks have prompted conversations about the rights of those media organizations to formulate criteria for participation at debates.

ABC News did not invite Mr. Kucinich, Democratic candidate Mike Gravel or Republican candidate Duncan Hunter to its New Hampshire debates on Jan. 5.

Fox News Channel did not invite Ron Paul to its Republican forum in New Hampshire on Jan. 6, prompting the state’s Republican party to pull its sponsorship of the event.

Brian Williams, the anchor of “NBC Nightly News,” is scheduled to moderate the debate. The format includes a twist: for the first time in this presidential debate cycle, “the candidates will have the ability to question each other during one particular segment,” Mr. Williams noted in a blog post.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

gravel kucinich paul nader January 15, 2008 ·

gravel kucinich paul nader

the truth is powerful

Dennis Kucinich should be ashamed of himself for the way he’s been acting over the last several days. A recount in New Hampshire? Suing to get into a debate despite anemic public support? What’s next?

Marjorie Kearns January 15, 2008 ·

I agree completely with this decision. Kucinich was has never been anything more than a marginal candidate with absolutely no chance of winning. He has been in many debates and gained no traction. This decision allows the real contenders more air time to make their case to the viewers.

It’s for Obama and Edwards to score a point in favor of Democracy by bycotting the debate for non inclusion of Kucinich in the debate and thus allowing HRC to make a solo debate.The message will go loud and clear to likes of MSNBC.

Wow…such bs NBC…I am loosing hope in America with this blatant action against our right to see all the candidates.

-n1337

Good! Nice guy but not a serious candidate.

Shame on NBC.

NBC and its executives should be ashamed. The response on this blog, all over the internet, and nearly everywhere in the known universe outside of GE’s own outlets (NBC, MSNBC, etc.) made it clear that voters wanted Kucinich’s voice heard in this debate.

Of course he’s not going to win the primary, but 3-4% in Nevada state polls is significant. Kucinich has now been kept out of the final debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now Nevada. In each case, he failed to meet the (shifting) criteria for debate, and the voters in these states lost their last chance to hear a perspective that — agree with it or not — is clearly different from the Democratic front-runners.

So essentially, corporations are telling Americans — in Iowa, New Hampshire, and now Nevada — who is and is not a viable candidate for president before a single vote has been cast. Is this democracy? Why aren’t we more upset?

Hey, here’s a good idea:
Why don’t we get rid of elections, let General Electric and Disney select 1,000 or so people randomly, phone them up, and then those people can decide who will be president from the comfort of their homes!

Is Dennis Kucinich not alowed because he is not a viable candidate or is he not a viable candidate because of being left out of televised debates?

If I was a Kucinich supporter, I would be inclined to treat this as a final straw in subjugation of American public life by money-grubbing, Republican-controlled corporate monsters. I would probably also call for investigative hearings, establishing of several regulatory commissions and passage of Kucinich-Paul Freedom from Corporate Machinations Bill (KPFCMBy, for short). But since I’m not, I really don’t care.

Randolph Riddle January 15, 2008 ·

Dennis Kucinich is a candidate in Nevada and is a national candidate who qualified for federal election matching funds. NBC operates under license by the government and must serve the public interest. How is the public interest served by exluding Dennis Kucinich from public debate?

Maybe part of why support for him is anemic is that he wasn’t allowed to participate in the ABC debate either. Why are the media so afraid of putting Dennis Kucinich on air? Is it because he might do something to lessen the power of the six or so corporations that control the media? America, there are only 3 Democratic candidates for you to choose from…

Another score for “big business.”

I don’t see how it’s a victory for free speech when the audience is not even permitted to hear all points of view! The election is far from over, and restricting the commentary to the early front-runners serves no purpose but to imply that they are the only ones running. I could understand if we had hundreds of candidates, but since there’s under ten, courtesy should dictate that Kucinich et al. get their 5 seconds in front of the camera. It’s cost them enough to run, and it’s in the public interest.

This is called “democracy”, American style.

This issue poses a fundamental problem that neither contract law nor the First Amendment are equipped to address. It is true that private parties hold a First Amendment right and right of association. It is also likely true that networks, for the most part, simply want to provide what they believe is the most relevant coverage. The problem is, the position the networks are in has literally become quasi-governmental in that the debates are essentially the only forums in which the public can view the candidates address and debate one another in person (if you want to call stumping and sophist rhetoric “debate”). As such, all candidates should agree not to participate in the debates unless all candidates are invited–or something like that. Otherwise, the networks are able to exert a subtle control over the agenda of the debates and, inded, completely silence some issues, by not inviting, or even threatening not to invite, candidates. The result is that networks determine who the public should be voting for, not the public. And that, if you ask me, is no good, particularly considering so many Americans’ propensity to think whatever they are told.

“Mr. Carlson responded: ‘Well as long as judges are deciding who’s on television, frankly I want a better time slot, and I plan to petition the court.'”

What an arrogant jerk! As much as Carlson wants to treat electing a president like American Idol, the corporate media should not control which candidates the country listens to. I would definitely vote Carlson off the island.

LandOfTheFree January 15, 2008 ·

Nothing to see here folks. Your corporate media tyranny is still intact. Go back to your regular schedule.

It is times such as these when I feel as if I am no longer living in the USA. The primary has just begun and the people have the right to hear all the presidential candidates.

Gregory, you should care because someday, a candidate that you support might be silenced.

Shame on Kucinich for trying to turn this into a circus. He is wasting my tax dollars and my time. I’d rather be listening to what Clinton, Edwards and Obama have to say about education, the economy, Iraq and just the low morale of the country over all. One of these three will be our next president.

Thank God for small favors.

Who wants to listen to that wack-job disrupt a debate with nothing practical to say?

If he can’t gather 2% of the vote in primaries or polls, he needs to go home.

He is the Harold Stassen of modern times.

That is completely ridiculous! The media should not be the ones controlling who has a chance to win. Having Dennis in their debate would only take seconds away from the other candidates and he would propose important concepts that would otherwise be ignored.

It definitely seems fishy that they would try so hard to keep him out of the debate. Our government is going to shit and we can’t even have a truly democratic election where everyone gets a fair chance! Argh… I am definitely moving to another country once I get out of college!

The recount in New Hampshire was not for Kucinich’s own sake. He’s coming out of pocket to pay for the recount, something that hinders not helps his campaign. He is the only candidate to believe in the importance of every vote counting, and by the second primary there was already discrepancy about the voting system. As far as the debate is concerned, he was invited and then uninvited for no better reason than to limit national political discourse and appease public interest. He had a right to be there.