First, all debates should be broadcast on PBS. That would take the Murdoch's, Time-Warner's, GE's, Westinghouse's, etc., out of that scenario.

Second, a neutral moderator. Meaning one that is longer working for the networks, or even the mass media. Someone similar to a Walter Cronkite.

Third, each candidate may only answer a predetermined number of questions. Place all the participating candidates names in hat say 4 times for each, and draw 3 (or however many names) to answer. If the same candidate, gets picked to answer the first 4 questions, then he/she is done answering individual questions for the night.

Fourth, candidates get a specified time limit to answer questions. 120 seconds, and at 90 seconds they get a warning that they only have 30 seconds remaining. After, 120 seconds, the microphone automatically cuts off.

It is not that difficult to run a "fair and balanced" debate if someone really wanted it to be fair and balanced. I want to hear the fringe candidates put some new ideas out there instead of the soundbites one gets 90% of the time from frontrunners.
aardvark Reviewed by aardvark on . Anyone else pissed off at this... I always hated when people would bitch and bitch about the media yap yap. But has anybody else been pissed off lately at how CNN and Faux News have been treating Ron Paul and Mike Gravel like complete shit. I don't give a rats ass whether or not you agree with their platform, but the people should decide the nominees, not the media outlets. When Chris Matthews was just laughing in Gravel's face and not letting him finish one sentence. Then how the absolutely useless peice of shit Rating: 5