They tried to win assurances that TV cameras won't show the other candidate's reactions when his rival speaks

I found this rather more manipulative and worrying than the part that bothered kat. According to my paper, "The White House could even try to pull out of the next two encounters if it did not go well. The Bush camp has already hinted it might do that if television companies stray from the rigid rules on coverage, banning shots of one candidate reacting to the others remarks."

The idea that either candidate would leave in a huff during the debate for such a reason is absurd, since it would immediately be interpreted as their losing the debate and the specific scene would be replayed over and over again on every news bulletin so no-one could miss it. Refusing to take part in future debates for which dates have already been published might be possible, but again the other side would insist it was really because they had been beaten, not for some petty rule infringement and the person who refused would look much weaker than if they had never agreed to the debate in the first place.

I assume television companies will go along with these rules so that the board members avoid making enemies, but the idea of politicians boycotting television channels entirely - as opposed to specific programmes - seems to me rather unlikely.