Connect with us

Politics

CNN is sharing its presidential debate with rivals. But there are strings attached

Published

on

CNN is sharing its presidential debate with rivals. But there are strings attached

CNN’s deal to produce the first debate of the 2024 presidential election cycle is a major coup for the news network. It won’t let viewers forget it.

The scheduled June 27 showdown between the presumptive nominees, President Biden and former President Trump, is the first time in history that a single TV network has landed exclusive rights to present a general election debate.

The first presidential debate in 2020 between the same two candidates attracted an audience of 73 million viewers, making it one of the last mass audience experiences left in a highly fragmented TV landscape. It’s a much-needed win for the Warner Bros. Discovery-owned news network that has been racked by executive shakeups, budget cuts and declining ratings in recent years.

And CNN isn’t going to let such a stature-building opportunity go to waste. Instead of the blue background showing the constitution, as seen in previous presidential debates, viewers will see the red CNN logo. The event will provide a major platform for CNN anchors Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, who will serve as moderators at the network’s studio in Atlanta.

But the potential for blockbuster ratings on CNN will be mitigated by the network’s decision to provide a feed of its production to other networks and digital outlets. CNN is making the offer as a public service. Every presidential debate held since 1960 has aired commercial free across the major broadcast networks and, in later years, on cable news outlets.

Advertisement

So, in order to maximize the opportunity the debate offers, CNN is putting restrictions on the use of the simulcast, right down to what it should be called. A list of conditions has gone out to outlets interested in carrying the event, according to several executives who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The CNN’s on-screen logo — or “bug,” as its often called — must appear throughout the simulcast, according to the network’s conditions. Other networks can put their bugs on the screen as well, but they can’t obscure CNN’s graphic.

CNN is also requiring other outlets to refer to the event as the “CNN Presidential Debate.” If a network runs any on-air promotions or advertising for the telecast, it must be referred to as the “CNN Presidential Debate Simulcast” and use artwork provided by CNN. In program guides and TV listings, it must be called “Simulcast: CNN Presidential Debate.”

In a break with the tradition of having general presidential debates proceed ad-free, there will be two commercial breaks in the 90-minute showdown, each running 3 1/2 minutes. Outlets running the simulcast can put their own commercials and promos in the breaks or run the spots sold by CNN.

However, other networks cannot insert their own anchors and commentators during the breaks or any other portion of the telecast — only before and after the event. Squeezing back the image of the debate stage onscreen so a pundit or rival anchor can chime in will be forbidden. Outlets that violate the terms will lose the right to carry the feed.

Advertisement

As of Friday, rival network executives said they were pushing back on some of CNN’s requirements. Some networks may choose not to promote the simulcast on their air if they are forced to mention CNN every time.

A CNN representative confirmed the network’s requirements for the rights to the simulcast, noting that they are being requested in return for covering the full cost of the production.

“CNN is unilaterally producing this debate, and that requires transparency with viewers and a substantial investment of resources,” the representative said. “CNN will provide the debate for free on CNN.com and make it available across a wide variety of news sources in order to reach as many Americans as possible.”

While no formal announcements have been made, all of the major networks and news channels are expected to carry the debate, according to several executives at CNN’s competitors. The networks need to commit several days before the event so it can be listed in electronic programming guides and TV listings.

Mark Lukasiewicz, a former NBC News executive who is now dean of the journalism school at Hofstra University, said he believes the CNN requirements are a reasonable trade-off for a simulcast that other networks can run with their own commercials.

Advertisement

“I think this is a very fair arrangement,” said Lukasiewicz, who worked on several debates while at NBC. “It’s a good model if this how the networks do the debates going forward. I hope they take CNN up on this offer so the debate is seen as widely as possible.”

CNN raised its hand after the Biden and Trump campaigns decided not to go through the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group that has overseen the events since 1988, setting the rules and choosing the venues and moderators. One of the major networks would provide cameras and other technical assistance but had no influence on the production.

The Biden and Trump campaigns agreed to two head-to-head match-ups, one on CNN and the other on Walt Disney Co.’s ABC on Sept. 10, which will be moderated by David Muir and Linsey Davis. Vice President Kamala Harris has agreed to a debate Trump’s still-to-be-determined running mate on CBS.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

How the Gaza Cease-Fire Deal United Teams Biden and Trump

Published

on

How the Gaza Cease-Fire Deal United Teams Biden and Trump

When President-elect Donald J. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Saturday to pressure him on a cease-fire deal in Gaza, there was someone on the speakerphone: Brett H. McGurk, President Biden’s longtime Mideast negotiator.

It was a vivid example of cooperation between two men representing bitter political rivals whose relationship has been best described as poisonous. Rarely if ever have teams of current and new presidents of different parties worked together at such a high-stakes moment, with the fate of American lives and the future of a devastating war hanging in the balance.

Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden publicly claimed credit for the breakthrough.

“This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site even before the deal was formally announced in the Middle East.

At the White House, Mr. Biden told reporters that his administration had worked tirelessly for months to convince the two sides to halt the fighting. He called it “one of the toughest negotiations I’ve ever experienced” and gave credit to “an extraordinary team of American diplomats who have worked nonstop for months to get this done.”

Advertisement

As he left the room, a reporter asked Mr. Biden, “Who gets credit for this, Mr. President, you or Trump?” Mr. Biden stopped, turned around and smiled.

“Is that a joke?” he asked.

But despite the tension between the current president and the next one, their representatives in the Middle East described a cooperative working relationship in the weeks since Election Day.

“Brett is in the lead,” Mr. Witkoff said last week at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club in Florida, describing the working relationship. That description was accurate by all accounts, even if it did not match what Mr. Trump had said moments before in one of several statements describing his negotiators as critical players.

In fact, Mr. Trump’s threat that “all hell” would break loose if no deal was reached before his inauguration on Monday might have helped motivate Hamas’s leadership to make final decisions. But people familiar with the negotiations said the announcement on Wednesday of a deal to temporarily end hostilities in Gaza was the result of months of work by Mr. McGurk in the Middle East, capped off by several weeks of carefully coordinated efforts by Mr. Witkoff.

Advertisement

Mr. Witkoff, 67, a blunt real estate investor from the Bronx, has largely planted himself in Qatar for the negotiations, knowing that whatever Mr. McGurk negotiated, he would have to execute. In fact, the 33 hostages who will be released under the cease-fire deal may not see freedom until Inauguration Day or after. The cease-fire would expire six weeks later, unless Phase 2 of the agreement kicks in.

By design, the goal was to send a unified message that the fighting must end and the hostages held by Hamas must be released. One person familiar with the negotiations, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the discussions, said Mr. McGurk was more involved in hammering out details of the agreement, while Mr. Witkoff’s role was to make clear that Mr. Trump wanted a deal by the time he is inaugurated.

The president-elect has also been setting some early parameters in his dealings with Mr. Netanyahu — who, for all his support of Mr. Trump in the election, was perceived by the Trump camp as dragging his feet on a deal. Mr. Witkoff flew to to Israel from Doha on Saturday — despite the Sabbath — to underscore the message that Mr. Netanyahu had to get on board.

Mr. Witkoff’s work, including the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, helped Mr. McGurk and the Biden administration to put pressure on both sides during the negotiation, according to the person familiar with the talks.

It was not at all clear that such an arrangement would work in the days immediately after Mr. Trump won a second term.

Advertisement

He and Mr. Biden have barely talked in recent weeks, their already acrimonious relationship weighed down by the Trump team’s determination to clean out the White House career staff and the Biden team issuing last-minute orders to box in the new administration.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Biden acknowledged some level of cooperation and respect between their aides.

“This deal was developed and negotiated under my administration, but its terms will be implemented for the most part by the next administration,” Mr. Biden told reporters. “In these past few days, we’ve been speaking as one team.”

But he did not give any more credit to Mr. Trump for helping the effort. For his part, the president-elect said he was “thrilled” that the American hostages would be released, but he did not mention Mr. Biden or the work of the current administration.

“We have achieved so much without even being in the White House,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return to the White House, and my Administration is fully confirmed, so they can secure more Victories for the United States!”

Advertisement

Both leaders left it to staff members to describe the way they had worked together on the Gaza negotiations.

A person familiar with that effort said a close partnership between Mr. McGurk and Mr. Witkoff was part of an “incredibly effective” process by which the Biden administration finalized a deal that the Trump administration would have to oversee.

That cooperation began soon after Mr. Trump won the election and named Mr. Witkoff to be his envoy to the region. Biden administration officials have said they believe the momentum for a deal began before that, when Mr. Biden helped broker a separate agreement to end fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That isolated Hamas and helped persuade the group that a cease-fire was in its interests, according to Biden officials.

Continue Reading

Politics

Stephen Miller preps House Republicans for Trump's immigration overhaul in closed-door meeting

Published

on

Stephen Miller preps House Republicans for Trump's immigration overhaul in closed-door meeting

Join Fox News for access to this content

You have reached your maximum number of articles. Log in or create an account FREE of charge to continue reading.

By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive.

Please enter a valid email address.

Having trouble? Click here.

President-elect Trump’s top aide on immigration and the border spoke with House Republicans during a roughly hour-long meeting Wednesday.

Lawmakers who left the room hailed Stephen Miller, who was tapped to be U.S. Homeland Security adviser in the new Trump administration, as a brilliant policy mind.

Advertisement

Two sources present for the discussions told Fox News Digital Miller talked about the need to scale up the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workforce, which is noteworthy given Trump’s promise to execute mass deportations when he returns to office.

Miller also discussed ways to cut federal funds going toward sanctuary cities and states, a cash flow that Republicans had previously promised to target if they were to control the levers of power in Washington.

COLORADO MAYOR SPEAKS OUT AFTER VIDEO OF ARMED VENEZUELAN GANG IN APARTMENT GOES VIRAL: ‘FAILED POLICY’

Trump adviser Stephen Miller addressed a group of House Republicans Wednesday, Jan. 15, 2025. (Getty Images)

The strategy meeting comes as congressional Republicans are preparing for a massive conservative policy overhaul through the budget reconciliation process. By lowering the threshold for passage in the Senate from 60 votes to 51, reconciliation allows the party controlling Congress and the White House to pass broad policy changes — provided they deal with budgetary and other fiscal matters.

Advertisement

The sources told Fox News Digital Miller’s portion of the meeting partly focused on what border and immigration policies could go into a reconciliation package and what kind of funding Congress would need to appropriate. 

1.4 MILLION ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN US HAVE BEEN ORDERED DEPORTED, BUT HAVE YET TO BE REMOVED: OFFICIAL

The sources said Miller told Republicans the incoming Trump administration understood the president-elect’s border and immigration goals were “probably not going to get a lot” of Democratic votes and that “those more controversial things would need to be in reconciliation.” More bipartisan initiatives could be passed during the regular process, the sources added. 

A House GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital of an understanding that Congress would follow Trump’s lead.

“I think we’re going to see a slew of executive orders early, and that is going to be helpful to separate from what we have to do legislatively,” the lawmaker said.

Advertisement

One source in the room said Miller emphasized the importance of messaging, adding that “nothing matters if we don’t get our message out to the American people.”

Former President Donald Trump

President-elect Trump has promised to carry out mass deportations. (Donald Trump/Truth Social)

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital Miller discussed “low-hanging fruit” that Trump could tackle by executive order, mentioning “deportation” as a possibility.

“Tax stuff, that’s going to take some time,” Norman said.

Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., declined to go into specifics about the meeting but told Fox News Digital the discussion focused on “illegal immigration and how that’s going to be curbed … to bring commonsense solutions to the program.”

HOUSE DOGE CAUCUS EYES FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS IN NEW GOAL-SETTING MEMO

Advertisement

“I had a couple of questions about the cost to American taxpayers if we don’t repatriate some 12 million illegal aliens who the Biden administration has let into our country,” Alford said.

Miller declined to answer reporters’ questions when he left the room.

He was invited to address the Republican Study Committee led by Rep. August Pfluger, R-Texas, the House GOP’s largest caucus, which acts as a conservative think tank of sorts for the rest of the House Republican Conference. 

House GOP leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., were not in attendance, nor were they expected.

Rep. Mark Alford

Rep. Mark Alford said he asked about the cost to taxpayers to keep millions of illegal immigrants in the country. (Getty Images)

Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., the group’s previous chairman, said there was “nothing new” said during the meeting, adding it was an opportunity for Trump’s aides to address the House GOP.

Advertisement

Trump and his aides have already paid heavy attention to congressional Republicans. 

Several of his incoming White House aides are in regular contact with top GOP lawmakers. Trump personally invited several groups of House Republicans to Mar-a-Lago last weekend.

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court leans in favor of state-enforced age limits on porn websites

Published

on

Supreme Court leans in favor of state-enforced age limits on porn websites

Thanks to the internet and smartphones, children today have instant access to vast amounts of online pornography, much of it graphic, violent and degrading, Texas state attorneys told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

They urged justices to restore the rules of an earlier era, when X-rated theaters and bookstores had an adults-only policy.

Last year, Texas enacted an age-verification law that requires pornographic websites to confirm their users are 18 or older.

Lawyers for 23 other Republican-led states joined in support of Texas, saying they have or plan to adopt similar measures.

The court’s conservative justices signaled they are prepared to uphold these new laws.

Advertisement

They noted that age-verification rules are now common for online gambling and for buying alcohol or tobacco online.

But more importantly, they pointed to the dramatic change in technology and the easy availability of hardcore pornography.

We are “in an entirely different era,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “The technological access to pornography has exploded.”

He said that warrants reconsidering rulings from decades past that invoked the 1st Amendment to strike down anti-pornography measures.

In one such ruling, the court in 2004 said parents and librarians could use filtering software to protect children from pornography.

Advertisement

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said parents have long known that “filtering” software is not effective in protecting children. “Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones and computers,” she said. “I can say from personal experience … content filtering isn’t working.”

In the past, she said the court had no problem upholding laws that prevent bookstores from selling sexually explicit books or magazine to children or teens.

She questioned why online porn should be treated differently.

Washington attorney Derek Shaffer, who represented the adult entertainment industry that challenged the Texas law on 1st Amendment grounds, argued the Texas law could have a “chilling effect” on adult customers who may be leery of providing personal information needed to verify age and identity.

Texas state solicitor Aaron Nielsen said the new age-verification systems allow customers to confirm their age online without directly contacting a particular website.

Advertisement

“Age verification is simple, safe and common,” he said.

The justices and the attorneys spent most of their time on what free speech standard should apply to such a law.

In the past, the court said anti-pornography laws must be viewed with “strict scrutiny.” Usually, that resulted in narrowing or striking down such laws.

By contrast, the 5th Circuit Court allowed the Texas law to take effect because it was a “rational” means of protecting children.

Several of the justices said they would vote to uphold the Texas law, but they may also agree to send it back to the 5th Circuit Court for a second hearing.

Advertisement

Republican-led states pointed to a growing pornography problem.

“The average child is exposed to internet pornography while still in elementary school,” wrote state attorneys for Ohio and Indiana. “Pornography websites receive more traffic in the U.S. than social media platforms Instagram, TikTok, Netflix, and Pinterest combined.”

Continue Reading

Trending