Today's News August 1, 2016: Conflicting debates

The big story is the conflict between debate schedules and the NFL. But the more interesting story is how this story is being reported.

First, Fox News...

Fox News:

Team Trump: Debate schedule instant replay of Dems' blindside on Sanders

The Commission on Presidential Debates on Sunday issued another statement in an apparent effort to end criticism by Donald Trump’s campaign about two of the events being scheduled during televised NFL games -- and suggested Trump is fighting a losing battle. 

“It is impossible to avoid all sporting events, and there have been nights on which debates and games occurred in most election cycles,” the commission wrote. “A debate has never been rescheduled as a result.” 

Two of the three debates scheduled in September and October will be televised during NFL games.

Ok, now to the left side...

CNN:

Standoff? Commission defends debate schedule amid Trump complaints 

Donald Trump's campaign is pushing to reschedule two of the presidential debates set for this fall, but the Commission on Presidential Debates, the nonpartisan group responsible for scheduling, is standing firm. 

"Our position on the debates is we want as many people, as many voters, to be participants in and to see the debates as possible," Jason Miller, senior communications adviser with the Trump campaign, said on CNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday. 

The campaign is concerned that two of the three presidential debates are set to take place on the same nights as nationally televised NFL games. 

The debate scheduling process is always difficult. Debates and football games have overlapped numerous times before, including twice in 2012.

Notice the subtle differences in this same story as reported from two different sources?

First, let's start with who is performing the action in each story:

• Fox: The Commission on Presidential Debates on Sunday issued another statement...
• CNN: Donald Trump's campaign is pushing to reschedule...

Here is what happened, minus the Media bias on both sides: 

1. Trump's campaign complained about the scheduling conflicts with football games on two of the dates.
2. The Commission on Presidential Debates denied the request to reschedule, basically saying the debates are more important than football games.

Each side of the political divide concentrated on one "actor" in this story, in order to sell their biased view of the story. Fox had to point at the COPD in order to sell their story that the COPD is corrupt like the DNC was, whereas CNN concentrated on Trump's complaint as some kind of attempt to "squirm out of the debates" (this is how CNN described it on their front page). 

Why is there a need for bias and spin in this story? Because it needs a lot of "sexing up" to make it interesting. Bias is the only way to sell this story. Be honest: Debate scheduling doesn't send a thrill up your leg.

In other news...

The Hill:

Third-party support surging

Voters now confronted with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are making something abundantly clear: they want another option. 

Surveys over the last six weeks have found a steady but noticeable jump in support for third-party candidates. The biggest beneficiary has been Libertarian Gary Johnson, who has shot up from 4.5 percent to 7.2 percent in RealClearPolitics polling averages. Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also seen an uptick since June — from 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent.

You have to go back to Ross Perot to see a third party candidate with numbers like these.

The article goes on:

Pollsters and political scientists say the deep malcontent with Clinton and Trump should give both candidates pause. 

“The fact that we have two major party candidates who are enormously disliked by the electorate, enormously and equally disliked, creates the opportunity for the minor party candidates to do better than they would in other presidential elections,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. 

“The minor party candidates can have great influence if the final race is very close.” 

Pollsters contacted by The Hill predicted that many of the voters now leaning toward a third-party candidate would eventually side with Trump or Clinton by Election Day.

But they caution that the volatility of the race and the low favorability ratings for both candidates mean anything is possible.

That last sentence is key. Here is my view: If Trump and Clinton persist in negative campaigning, it is highly likely the third parties will see an increase as more voters get disillusioned with their "current" R or D. The more mud thrown, the more mud sticks. The problem they will face is that the more support third party candidates get, the more they will keep. Once voters realize they CAN vote their conscience, they will, win or lose. It is a liberating experience knowing you can vote for someone because you support them, regardless of their party.