depetro comments

[radiotony]

But even if there were a dozen candidates, why limit any of them? If
programmers are concerned about too many candidates in one debate, have two
debates on recurring evenings or two, one hour debates, with X amount of
candidates each hour. 
There are very easy solutions to these kinds of issues if people think
creatively.
And why the debates always limited to just an hour? And why are there only 1
minute responses? That is what I find difficult to understand. 
While I understand we live in a sound-bite society, voting is a civic duty
and airing debates with all the candidates who are on the ballot, a public
service. 
You can't really begin to learn much about any of the candidates until
you've had the chance to really hear what they say and mean.

Best, 
Tony 
 
Anthony Schinella
Station Manager/Program Director
WKXL 1450, Concord, N.H. 
Award-winning news, sports, arts & community conversation
Blog: http://politizine.blogspot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: boston-radio-interest-bounces@rolinin.BostonRadio.org
[mailto:boston-radio-interest-bounces@rolinin.BostonRadio.org] On Behalf Of
Garrett Wollman
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2006 1:15 PM
To: Daniel Billings
Cc: bri@bostonradio.org
Subject: RE: depetro comments

<<On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 12:50:48 -0500, "Daniel Billings"
<billings@suscom-maine.net> said:

> He was included in 2 of the 4 televised debates and some people wonder 
> why he was included in any of the debates for reasons such as those 
> suggested by Depetro.

I wonder, on the other hand, why the complainers think it's legitimate to
have a "debate" that doesn't involve all the candidates on the ballot.  A
couple of weeks ago, I heard a lot of griping about the presence of Ross and
Mihos in the Mass. gubernatorial debates.  It would be one thing if there
were a dozen minor-party candidates on the ballot (as in the Presidential
race most leap years), but with only four candidates there should be no
issues letting them all be heard.

-GAWollman