Presidential race 2016

[BlueTiki]

It looks like Trump wasn't lying about the debate time negotiation, but neither was the moderator who challenged him on it.

Cable news press releases are careful with their language. “Two hours of debate” was CNBC’s way of saying that the actual debate time — that is, the time that the candidates spent chatting onstage — was to be two hours, meaning that commercial breaks and other nonsense would be in addition to that allotment. Pressure from Trump and fellow candidate Dr. Ben Carson reportedly succeeded in pushing CNBC back on that plan. But they were arguing over about 10-15 minutes, in all.

True on the time . . . however, CNBC was also eliminating opening and closing statements. This, too, was a sticking point for Carson and Trump.

From NBC news . . .

"They take issue with CNBC's plans for a debate that doesn't include opening and closing statements, and runs two hours plus up to another 16 minutes in commercial breaks. According to Politico, CNBC distributed a memo outlining these plans that indicated all candidates had agreed to them.

In the letter, the candidates write that "neither of our campaigns agreed to either the length you propose or your ban on opening or closing statements. In fact, neither of our campaigns were even consulted."

According to the New York Times, aides to a number of candidates expressed concerns with the debate parameters during a Wednesday conference call with the RNC and CNBC. In an interview with the Times, Trump Campaign Manager Corey Lewandowski threatened to skip the debate if the criteria aren't changed.

But the letter, addressed to CNBC Washington Bureau Chief Matthew Cuddy, puts that threat to paper. In it, the campaign says that "neither" the refusal to include opening and closing statements, nor the potentially extended time frame, "are acceptable."

"Both our campaigns hope that you will agree with these very reasonable format changes so that CNBC may present all the Republican candidates to your audience," the candidates write.

In response, Brian Steel, a spokesman for CNBC, suggested the network may budge on its criteria, promising to "take the candidates' views on the format into consideration" going forward. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...te-n445371


Seems kinda funny a "fact checking" source didn't include BOTH sticking points that were negotiated.

Media bias?

I like the old Yiddish saying: A half-truth is a whole lie.