By Brett LinleyCONTRIBUTOR

In the recent CNBC presidential debate, controversy arose as candidates felt they were being asked unreasonable questions. This supposed breach of conduct led to the Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus terminating the contract to hold further debates on NBC networks. This episode leaves much to be observed on the current state of political media partnerships.

Ultimately, this series of events takes on a Shakespearian tone, as it is indeed much “ado about nothing.” The pettiness of the RNC’s response is perhaps only matched by its ineptitude in managing difficult questions fielded by its candidates.

While Donald Trump may contest this, questions that hurt candidates’ feelings are not part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. In this regard, many candidates have perhaps proven themselves unworthy or at the very least incapable of handling the pressures of the nation’s highest office.

Marco Rubio took to directly attacking the media, referring to it as Hillary Clinton’s “ultimate super PAC.” To observe how this tactic ends up playing out, one can simply ask Newt Gingrich. This childish response to tough questions is not befitting someone who wishes to lead the country.

The RNC’s response is essentially an attempt to set up a monopoly for those who can ask Republicans questions. In a market where entry is restricted by force, we can expect one result: lower quality debates.

While Priebus claimed that CNBC’s questions were beyond the pale and merely served to discredit their candidates, perhaps it should be asked if the candidates are not discrediting themselves all on their own? While some questions took on a more personal tone, it merely reflects the desire of the public to have concerns about deep-perceived personal flaws addressed.

If Donald Trump did not fling out bizarre and unworkable concepts like building a wall across Mexico and getting them to pay for it, he would not be asked about a campaign that resembled that of a comic book super villain. If Ben Carson’s tax plan could be reconciled with basic math, he would not be called on it.

Unless we as citizens look forward to candidates answering questions about fantasy football and their favorite episode of “Desperate Housewives,” we should rally against this de facto debate censorship.

Brett Linley is the president of Hofstra Students for Liberty. 

The views and opinions expressed in the Op-Ed section are those of the authors of the articles. They are not an endorsement of the views of The Chronicle or its staff. The Chronicle does not discriminate based on the opinions of the authors.