You got it right. It's only part of the way there. If only they could be moderated by Bill Moyers, or some other legitimate journalist(Which means no Big Three, Faux Noise or CNN).

It's sort of beautiful... but it's also sort of guaranteeing that we won't have any of these mythical town halls for want of a format and a way to present them. I suspect ABC's response, as well as other news organizations is to say they don't want to dictate format, they'd just like to facilitate the broadcast. I don't like the way the media did the primary debates either... but a media blackout and a refusal to work on terms... that's not a solution either.

Ezra,
Damn right about consequences! Market incentives come late to the media industry in a fashion that they can appreciate; I've never gotten a sense that they think that the decline of the traditional media and the rise of blogging was due to their poor quality.

To Weboy, they'll respond that way, the campaigns will shoot them down again, and ABC will still end up biting its tongue and broadcasting whatever format is offered. How can they refuse, if even one network does so? What sitcom or drama would the networks not interrupt for coverage (and thereby claim that that particular sitcom is more important than the presidential election)?

It's got nothing to do with accountability. It's a matter of control. The press is no more or less a threat than the League of Women Voters. Third parties like the Libertarians have to be kept out. Scope has to be negotiated without interference from objective observers. This is not good news, it is the same old post-Perot shit.

William, your answer suggests that someone, in fact, is actually working on putting these together... and they're not. The reason Bloomberg and ABC came forward is because someone, really, had to see if the campaigns were serious, or posturing. So far... posturing. These "town halls" could happen tomorrow, if the two campaigns did the work to make it happen... but they won't, and now they've both made clear that outsiders who attmept to do the organizing will, for minor quibbles, get shot down. That will play well, because people enjoy watching the media get kicked... but it's the media, ultimately who will cover this, whatever "this" is. These town halls are likely to not happen - there's little in them to benefit Obama, and the vague, untried nature of the initial proposals is more wishful than real. Blame the media if you like... but if the candidates really wanted them... they'd happen. And if we really wanted them... we could maybe make them happen. But we (the political types) probably don't care ether, despite the hand wringing

Perhaps this might be related to what Rassmussen's latest polling is showing: "Voters give media failing grades in objectivity for election 2008."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/voters_give_media_failing_grades_in_objectivity_for_election_2008

"Voters have little doubt as to who is benefitting from the media coverage this year—Barack Obama. Fifty-four percent (54%) say Obama has gotten the best coverage so far. Twenty-two percent (22%) say McCain has received the most favorable coverage while 14% say that Hillary got the best treatment.

At the other extreme, 43% say Clinton received the worst treatment from the media. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the media was roughest on McCain and only 15% thought the media coverage was most unfair to Obama."

McCain is justifiably skeptical of the treatment he will receive from the MSM - I wonder why Obama fears his enablers?

Obama rightly 'fears his enablers' because the general population is, as is often the case, completely wrong. While it is true that Obama has received a considerable amount of positive media attention thus far, it is also true that he has been the primary target of attacks that are a combination of meaningless, unwarranted, and sometimes, completely false.

Stories about Wright, Ayers, flag pins, a possible Muslim background, HUSSEIN, elitism, black supremacy, etc etc. have dominated the news cycle for months now, all barely anything but meaningless distractions. This is not to say that there are issues of substance where Obama can be legitimately be criticized; Indeed, there are. Obama may have benefited from the media in January through early March, but nearly everything since then has repeatedly crippled his poll numbers. He is not the victim of some 'vast right wing conspiracy', but rather a media in which running unimportant but sensationalist stories has become the norm.

Consider McCain on the other hand. He is widely considered to be very popular within journalistic circles. This attribute has been obscured by the much larger Democratic primary battle, but now that its just him and Obama, I think it'll be easier to see.

Bring back the League of Women Voters-now those were some real presidential debates about substantive issues.

If the campaigns were serious, or posturing. So far... posturing. These town halls could happen tomorrow, if the two campaigns did the work to make it happen... but they won't, and now they've both made clear that outsiders who attmept to do the organizing will, for minor quibbles, get shot down.

While it is true that Obama has received a considerable amount of positive media attention thus far, it is also true that he has been the primary target of attacks that are a combination of meaningless, unwarranted, and sometimes, completely false.

How can they refuse, if even one network does so?

This is not to say that there are issues of substance where Obama can be legitimately be criticized; Indeed, there are.

This is not to say that there are issues of substance where Obama can be legitimately criticized; Indeed, there are