Why the "debates" are a waste

I've refused to watch the presidential 'debates' the last two election cycles. I used to debate competitively, and I can tell you these candidate cattle calls bear as much relation to a real, structured debate as the National Enquirer does to the Wall Street Journal. (Of course, given the tailspin of journalistic ethics, maybe that analogy is more apt than I'd like to admit.)

And while the linked article is concerned with CNN's gross lack of broadcast integrity, don't think for a minute Fox News is any better. I've personally witnessed one of their well known reporters start an interview with a government representative by asking "how do you want the story to play?"

If you want the facts these days, you're going to have to dig through multiple sources, on your own. The reason independent candidates receive no access or very little stage time in the debates is they are less likely to "stay on script." The corporate media are little more than a giant funnel, directing their particular audiences to the "narrative" they want to push. That's what happens in an age of relativism. The truth is out there. It's just doesn't reside--at least, not in its entirety--within any of the major media outlets.

UPDATE -- Good summary of the egregiousness of CNN's setup:

It's hard to have a bad debate performance when:

** The audience is planted in your favor
** The questions are planted in your favor
** The questioners are your supporters
** The after debate spin room includes 2 former staff members and 1 current campaign analyst