Gingrich Says He Will Skip Debates if Audiences Can’t Participate

[jimnyc]

WTF is wrong with the media? Now it's an issue with the crowd cheering when something they agree with is stated? It couldn't possibly make the debates any longer but than a few minutes. I know it's been done before, but it's still stupid. I have to bite my tongue and can't cheer or clap when something is said? LOL No point in even allowing a crowd then, they can see the same on TV.


Newt Gingrich insists his fans will not be silenced.

Mr. Gingrich, a former House speaker, on Tuesday morning threatened not participate in any future debates with audiences that have been instructed to be silent. That was the case on Monday, when Brian Williams of NBC News asked the audience of about 500 people who assembled for a debate in Tampa to hold their applause until the commercial breaks.

In an interview with the morning show “Fox and Friends,” Mr. Gingrich said NBC’s rules amounted to stifling free speech. In what has become a standard line of attack for his anti-establishment campaign, Mr. Gingrich blamed the media for trying to silence a dissenting point of view.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-says-he-will-skip-debates-if-audiences-cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

[Thunderknuckles]

Yeah, I'd say if you really don't want the cheering, ditch the crowds and change the format to a more private one between debaters and moderators. I doubt that will happen.
We also have to be honest here. I don't think Newt has a problem with the rules because of issues surrounding free speech. He knows his polling goes way up with the applause and standing ovations he gets.

[Little-Acorn]

If I were Gingrich, I'd participate in such debates anyway. And the first time it came my turn to talk, I'd say,

"By the way, you folks in the audience, I hear you've been instructed not to cheer. I think that's a silly thing to tell you. This debate is FOR you, you ultimately paid for this hall and this venue with money you earned doing your jobs. If I were you I'd go right ahead and cheer when you like, and if the people doing the instructing don't like it, perhaps THEY should find another job.

"Now If I may return to the debate topic at hand, my response is....."

[ConHog]

WTF is wrong with the media? Now it's an issue with the crowd cheering when something they agree with is stated? It couldn't possibly make the debates any longer but than a few minutes. I know it's been done before, but it's still stupid. I have to bite my tongue and can't cheer or clap when something is said? LOL No point in even allowing a crowd then, they can see the same on TV.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-says-he-will-skip-debates-if-audiences-cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

I'm with it if it also means no more 50 million standing ovations by whichever party when the POTUS farts during the State of the Union.

[Abbey Marie]

WTF is wrong with the media? Now it's an issue with the crowd cheering when something they agree with is stated? It couldn't possibly make the debates any longer but than a few minutes. I know it's been done before, but it's still stupid. I have to bite my tongue and can't cheer or clap when something is said? LOL No point in even allowing a crowd then, they can see the same on TV.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-says-he-will-skip-debates-if-audiences-cant-participate/?smid=tw-thecaucus&seid=auto

Don't worry, Jim. I'm pretty sure the MSM will still allow us to goose step.

:tank3:

[krisy]

I thought that was really stupid when they said the audience had to remain silent. It also made for a snoozer of a debate. I agree with jim that it couldn't possibly prolong the debates that much. It might even inspire the candidates to think better,give more detailed answers.

I think the moderators are all afraid of getting dogged again

[chloe]

I don't care if they cheer I just want to hear what there answers are in the debate.

[jimnyc]

I don't care if they cheer I just want to hear what there answers are in the debate.

I don't care if they cheer either, I care that they are told that they cannot do so. And although done before, I still find it odd that this happens a couple of days after Gingrich makes the moderator and station look foolish, with the crowd erupting in agreement.

[chloe]

I don't care if they cheer either, I care that they are told that they cannot do so. And although done before, I still find it odd that this happens a couple of days after Gingrich makes the moderator and station look foolish, with the crowd erupting in agreement.

no coincidence but I'd still rather hear him debate inspite of it because I'd rather vote for him then Romney and the more air he gives Romney the more I cringe.

[gabosaurus]

Of course Newt wants the audiences to be demonstrative. If I was Romney, I would want the same thing.
Republican debates are staged in front of a handpicked audience sympathetic to the GOP cause. Of course, they are going to cheer everything the candidates say. Even the lamest of zingers will evoke wild responses.
If the audience was 50-50 GOP-Dems, Newt might want the audience silenced.

[Thunderknuckles]

Of course Newt wants the audiences to be demonstrative. If I was Romney, I would want the same thing.
Republican debates are staged in front of a handpicked audience sympathetic to the GOP cause. Of course, they are going to cheer everything the candidates say. Even the lamest of zingers will evoke wild responses.
If the audience was 50-50 GOP-Dems, Newt might want the audience silenced.
Same holds true for Democratic debates so it's not really a strong argument.

[gabosaurus]

Same holds true for Democratic debates so it's not really a strong argument.

It is true for both parties. Which is why allowing audiences to participate is good for candidates.

[Thunderknuckles]

It is true for both parties. Which is why allowing audiences to participate is good for candidates.
Thank you. A much better response than the former partisan one.

[logroller]

It is true for both parties. Which is why allowing audiences to participate is good for candidates.
A 'good' derived from public participation in government; but this can be bad for special interests, like media and their advertisers, whose money and resources put on the debate. They're obviously doing their best to keep on a prime-time schedule so nobody misses an episode of season 16 of some reality show. Because like those shows, the media views debates as little more than entertainment. I propose that, like other shows filmed in front of studio audience, they should just have an applause light.......................That or we have it on c-span.

[PostmodernProphet]

can I ask a question I haven't heard asked before?.......why do the Republicans even bother to attend a debate run by NBC or MSNBC?.........let them conduct Democrats debates......

[logroller]

can I ask a question I haven't heard asked before?.......why do the Republicans even bother to attend a debate run by NBC or MSNBC?.........let them conduct Democrats debates......

Equal time rule maybe.

[SassyLady]

Because there are, in fact, dumb questions. Who ever said there is no such thing as a dumb question has never heard the utterly stupid things a liberal debate host will ask. Therefore GOP candidates love to let them host and let them make asses of themselves.