Bush vs Kerry debate; Why not Abdullah vs Kit Siang?

New Straits Times group editor Hardev Kaur offered in her column “My Notebook” on 1 October a preview of the first presidential debate between Republican President George W. Bush and his Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry. She tried to cast a cynical light on it but her effort ended up as a reflection of her own distorted vision.

She began and ended her piece by saying that only one thing was certain about the debate, and that was actually stated in its headline: “Winners of the great debate will be the networks.” She was referring to the TV networks in the US. But why them? Because, according to her, they would be raking in huge advertising revenues for the live telecast that would draw a huge audience. It was as if money was the real interest or motivation of the US TV networks here.

As she put it at the end of her piece:

“No matter who (Bush or Kerry) comes out looking better and sounding more convincing, the real winners at the end of it all (the debate and its coverage) will be the various networks, which would have collected millions of US dollars from the sponsors and advertisers...”

But what millions of dollars?

Throughout the 90 minutes that Bush and Kerry debated one another, there was not a single break for commercials! How could the networks have sold any airtime?

Yes, according to the Nielsen Media Research, the debate garnered a big rating of 39.4% which comes to about slightly more than 43 million households that tuned in. But all that is after the fact.

Even if the networks believed they could get that size a rating based on past US presidential debates, they still could not sell airtime to advertisers as they were not allowed to interrupt the debate with commercial breaks.

What’s more, the rating of 39.4% referred to all the major US networks combined, from free-to-air networks to cable/satellite networks, not anyone particular network.

To be sure, while the US TV networks are highly competitive in making as much money as possible, Kaur was clearly wrong that the networks’ live telecast of the debate was about money.

If it were so, some of the networks would actually not air the debate. Instead, they would air entertainment programs during that prime-time hour-and-a-half taken up by the debate. They could, for example, air three half-hour popular sitcoms filled with the usual breaks for commercials.

Indeed, why not? Why did every major free-to-air and cable network need to carry the debate live? A network or two airing popular sitcoms, with commercial breaks, could actually attract viewers not interested in the debate and gain advertising revenues.

Clearly, Hardev was wrong to think the networks would be collecting the “millions of US dollars from the sponsors and advertisers” for carrying the debate. More likely they were losing thousands, if not millions, of dollars for carrying it.

So, why televise the debate? On top of that, why did every US TV network have to do it when they could not use their own cameras to show the debate but had to use the same video (and audio) feed?

Is it farfetched to say that they viewed the debate as a major political event and that if a network were to ignore it, it would risk losing their integrity and invite public complaint or disdain?

Meanwhile, precisely because the networks all covered the debate live, with the same video feed to boot, they were actually suggesting to the American public that, hey, perhaps they should also take the debate seriously.

So, who were the real winners in the networks covering the debate? Is it farfetched to say the American public, regardless how they will vote in the election on 2 November?

Hardev’s cynicism was thus quite misplaced. Sure, the US can be hypocritical and money grubbing in many ways. But she appeared quick to apply that perception to everything the US does, in this case the role of the US TV networks here. That does not help anyone, least of all the paper she works for and its readers.

One also cannot help but wonder why she does not consider at all how Malaysia should or can try to do something similar. Thus why not, for example, have the leaders of the various major parties contending in Malaysian elections debate on TV, with the various networks or channels covering it live?

If that were done, would the Malaysian public or voters not be the winners?

Indeed, why did Hardev not wonder why such head-to-head debates are not held during Malaysian election campaigns, which are instead dominated by mainstream media coverage of the Barisan Nasional?