Cnn Youtube Debate Format

[TheNiche]

Hadn't caught more than bits and peices of the other YouTube debates until tonight. Before this, I'd thought of it as an interesting concept. My opinion has shifted.

It is my position that CNN puts on the YouTube debates as a gimmick, signalling to the masses that they can ask questions directly of the candidates rather than relying on a very few of the 'talking heads', who so often are unwilling to ask the tough ones because they don't want to scare off potential future interviewees. But it is in practice a false signal.

They put on a cartoon from the Houston Chronicle's Nick Anderson as a question...they allowed a journalist (of sorts) to ask a question, rather than a 'regular joe'. ...and I think its safe to say that Nick Anderson is on the left. Even if he lived in a state with a vote that mattered in the Republican primaries, he wouldn't be voting in one. His opinion will matter...eventually. But should it now? And I'm not saying that it was a bad question, either, but certainly the intent there was to get a jab in at the Bush presidency.

They also apparently put on a question from someone who is a chair of some gay issues committe on Hillary Clinton's campaign. A political activist gets publicity. Background check, anyone?

And just by profiling a few of the other submiters and questions, it was pretty clear to me that a few of the other submissions were from folks with an opposing ideology targeting the political party rather than trying to flesh out the character of any particular candidates. It was also pretty apparent that certain issues were heavily targeted while others were completely left in the dark. No questions on economy, housing, or energy. Pocketbook issues were almost entirely off the table, hit upon in secondary discourse. Social issues were pretty much it. Good for Romney, Huckabee and Hunter, bad for Thompson and, to a large extent, Ron Paul.

To be perfectly clear, I have a lot of very serious criticisms about traditional debate formats as well, and I like the essence of the concept of the YouTube format except that it is so easily hijacked by submitters and is still influenced by a soft-handed approach to selection of questions, or alternatively creates opportunities for subtle influence such as by giving more airtime to certain candidates than others, giving some candidates easy questions and others the not-so-easy ones, or picking the issues.

If I had more faith in television viewers to see through the smokescreen, I wouldn't mind so much, but sadly I've often found that the best way to get a sense of which way public opinion is headed is to get drunk. Scares me.

[westguy76]

I used this as my first opputunity to get into the election season. I haven't even paid attention to this point as to who the candidates are and where they stand.

After watching the debate I am dumbfounded that Guliani is leading the pack for the nomination, obviously it's early, but I don't think he represented well.

I think he was poor at comprising his thoughts and answering the questions. Every answer he gave started with how he cleaned up, rebuilt, or rescued New York. I believe he was also not forthcoming on his real position on the gun control issue I think he lost points there. In my mind he came off as the least presidential I just have a hard time seeing it.

[cottonmather0]

I think this format is demeaning to the candidates and to the entire process. Not to mention that CNN apparently failed to vet a few of the "undecided" questioners who made it on (link here) and seemed to select mostly questioners (Bible Guy, Confederate Flag Guy, Gun Guy) who fit their stereotype of Republican voters. Given the thousands of videos they say they received, I would assume they could have found similar questions from people who didn't look like walking cliches, but those aren't the ones they picked. They picked the cariacatures and expected the candidates to respond to them seriously.

Politics these days is getting more and more vulgar (in the classical sense, not the obscene meaning of the word) and I think we are worse off for it.

And I'll stop there before I write a 10,000 word post on the subject.

[houstonmacbro]

At some point I want to check out the YouTube/CNN stuff ... I figure it will be online for awhile?

[crunchtastic]

To call any of modern America's political dog and pony show a 'debate' is an insult to the history of reasoned argument and meaningful discourse. American political debate pretty much ended with Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

I, too, will refrain from a rant.

[lockmat]

I, too, will refrain from a rant.

C'mon. That's what HAIF is for.

[TheNiche]

I think this format is demeaning to the candidates and to the entire process. Not to mention that CNN apparently failed to vet a few of the "undecided" questioners who made it on (link here) and seemed to select mostly questioners (Bible Guy, Confederate Flag Guy, Gun Guy) who fit their stereotype of Republican voters. Given the thousands of videos they say they received, I would assume they could have found similar questions from people who didn't look like walking cliches, but those aren't the ones they picked. They picked the cariacatures and expected the candidates to respond to them seriously.

Black-on-Black Violence Guys were one of those curious questions that made me raise my eyebrows. It isn't exactly a hot blip on the issues radar screen, you know. ...and I just saw a commercial for a CNN special that'll focus on that topic. Seems like they just used the question to give themselves a subtle plug.

[dbigtex56]

Black-on-Black Violence Guys were one of those curious questions that made me raise my eyebrows. It isn't exactly a hot blip on the issues radar screen, you know.

That's the problem. It ought to be.

[RedScare]

It has been a hot topic all week, ever since the murder of Washington Redskins football player Sean Taylor. I guess if you had not turned on a TV or picked up a newspaper, or searched the web all week, you could have missed it.

[dbigtex56]

It has been a hot topic all week, ever since the murder of Washington Redskins football player Sean Taylor. I guess if you had not turned on a TV or picked up a newspaper, or searched the web all week, you could have missed it.

But Red...that's a rich, famous black guy. Otherwise, why would the news media cover this issue? (/sarcasm)

[memebag]

It has been a hot topic all week, ever since the murder of Washington Redskins football player Sean Taylor. I guess if you had not turned on a TV or picked up a newspaper, or searched the web all week, you could have missed it.

I heard about the murder, but I didn't know what race anyone involved was.

[Jeebus]

That's the problem. It ought to be.

It's not covered because we all already know what the answer is: eliminate rap music which emboldens young black youth to live that lifestyle of fast money, drugs, and respect through violence.

NBC has been doing stories this week each night about African Americans. They reported that 79% of all black college students are females. Again, they pointed back to rap music and the lifestyle it advertises as the primary reason why so few black men go on to college.

But instead of banning crap like 50 cent, politicians would rather spend millions on trying to buy the hearts of young black men. Money wasted. Until we censor free-speech or take away our right to bear arms, then it looks like millions of taxpayer dollars will be wasted. Choose your poison, right?

Back on topic.. This debate further pushed McCain, Tancredo, & Hunter up; Paul, Romney & Guilliani down; and left Thompson standing in the middle with nothing original to say.Ron Paul might be the answer to all our problems, but he's quickly becoming the "Ross Perot" of the 2008 GOP Primaries.

..And Niche, what did you really expect from a GOP debate hosted by CNN with the panel made-up of YouTube subscribers?

[RedScare]

I'm still trying to figure out what the "conspiracy" is. A Republican candidate was asked a question by a non-Republican? Is this bad? Isn't the ANSWER to the question what is important, rather than the questioner? What does the Republican nominee plan to do during the general election campaign...only answer questions posed by Michele Malkin and Sean Hannity? Have the Republican candidates and their supporters finally conceded that they want nothing to do with the 70% of Americans that do not agree with their neo-conservative view of the world?

If so, the election has already been decided.

[musicman]

it's not like they could have asked one of those hard hilary questions like " do you prefer diamonds or pearls?"

[editor]

It is my position that CNN puts on the YouTube debates as a gimmick

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

While the CNN/YouTube debates are a gimmick, the intent isn't as sinister as you might imagine.

The idea of having Ordinary Joes ask the questions of the candidates on tape is an old standby in political seasons. This is HARDLY the first time this has been done. In fact, almost as long as there have been televised debates this has been done; all the way back to the 70's and 80's.

So, why did CNN decide to go the YouTube route? Two reasons:

1. The "gimmick" you mentioned earlier -- it's a way for CNN to pretend that it is an edgy news gathering organization in touch with the youth of today and their high-tech lifeystyle.

2. (This is the big one) It saves CNN money. Instead of sending reporters and camera crews out all over the country to get opinions on tape from regular people, send them back to CNN, and sort through them -- CNN is letting Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public do the heavy lifting. All CNN has to do is cut a promo with a YouTube logo and people fall all over themselves to do the work that used to cost CNN hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more).

Congratulations, America. You've been had. Cheap.

[cottonmather0]

Ron Paul might be the answer to all our problems, but he's quickly becoming the "Ross Perot" of the 2008 GOP Primaries.

I agree; the more I see of Ron Paul, the more I like him, but he has no chance in Hades of getting elected president. He is the only candidate who has even the remotest idea of what "Federalism" means, but to most Americans it's a meaningless term.

[TheNiche]

I'm still trying to figure out what the "conspiracy" is. A Republican candidate was asked a question by a non-Republican? Is this bad? Isn't the ANSWER to the question what is important, rather than the questioner? What does the Republican nominee plan to do during the general election campaign...only answer questions posed by Michele Malkin and Sean Hannity? Have the Republican candidates and their supporters finally conceded that they want nothing to do with the 70% of Americans that do not agree with their neo-conservative view of the world?

If so, the election has already been decided.

Um, we're talking about primaries here. I just noticed that some of the questions used took aim at the whole party rather than actually helping to determine what the differences between candidates were and how they reasoned those differences.

There'll be plenty of time for partisans to fire verbal broadsides at one another after we actually know who's been nominated within their parties to run for President. But that's a matter internal to each party.