CNN's YouTube Debate: A Mockery of Democracy?
The eight Democrats currently running for the party's nomination for President meet tonight in South Carolina for a debate hosted by CNN and YouTube. The biggest draw to this debate, according to CNN and YouTube, is that the questions directed to the candidates will be from your average person, via recorded videos submitted to the CNN/YouTube venture.
There is little question that YouTube has already had an impact on American politics. One only needs to ask former Senator George Allen about how much potential clips on YouTube could bring to politics.
However, given the promotions for the debate seen thus far and given the recent performances by moderators at this year's debates, chances are fairly good that there will be a substantial portion of debate time devoted to people acting silly, or asking provocative questions with little value, or asking questions on those little issues that have no real impact on the platform of a candidate or their ability to govern if elected. Simply put, the temptation to go for sheer entertainment value will be greater than never before.
So, will this debate turn out to completely mock the democratic process by providing little or no value to the voters?
Although there will also likely be some very well researched questions that give the candidates the chance to articulate their positions on issues important to America, how could there be a true follow-up to a question if the candidate gives a non-answer answer or to further probe their position if the questioner will not be present? Even if a moderator pounces on the chance to give a follow-up, it may not mesh with the intentions of the person who asked the original question. (Edit: Turns out Anderson Cooper will ask the follow-ups, as stated in Chris Cillizza's column, but the same concern about staying true to the intent of the question remains.)
Still, it's not as if moderators are incapable of asking silly questions. Take the example of Brit Hume during the second Republican debate who essentially asked the candidates if they supported the use of torture on the given premise that only torturing someone would prevent an American city from being blown apart.
Here, YouTube comes to the rescue as someone's montage not only highlights the question, but also shows how Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) falls for mixing entertainment with policy when he said he wants Jack Bauer to save the day.
Furthermore, will this mixture of entertainment and policy harm politics in America? If the electorate begins to expect candidates to answer to someone recording a question while wearing a hockey mask, will this detract from the larger message the candidates try to send to the entire American electorate? Will this encourage more people to vote in the upcoming elections? If they do vote, will they even know what they're voting for?
Maybe it's time to give this CNN/YouTube venture a shot. Either it'll do much better than the recent performances from handpicked moderators or it'll fall flat on its face. We'll know whether this kind of debate format is good for American democracy or makes a mockery of it.
There is little question that YouTube has already had an impact on American politics. One only needs to ask former Senator George Allen about how much potential clips on YouTube could bring to politics.
However, given the promotions for the debate seen thus far and given the recent performances by moderators at this year's debates, chances are fairly good that there will be a substantial portion of debate time devoted to people acting silly, or asking provocative questions with little value, or asking questions on those little issues that have no real impact on the platform of a candidate or their ability to govern if elected. Simply put, the temptation to go for sheer entertainment value will be greater than never before.
So, will this debate turn out to completely mock the democratic process by providing little or no value to the voters?
Although there will also likely be some very well researched questions that give the candidates the chance to articulate their positions on issues important to America, how could there be a true follow-up to a question if the candidate gives a non-answer answer or to further probe their position if the questioner will not be present? Even if a moderator pounces on the chance to give a follow-up, it may not mesh with the intentions of the person who asked the original question. (Edit: Turns out Anderson Cooper will ask the follow-ups, as stated in Chris Cillizza's column, but the same concern about staying true to the intent of the question remains.)
Still, it's not as if moderators are incapable of asking silly questions. Take the example of Brit Hume during the second Republican debate who essentially asked the candidates if they supported the use of torture on the given premise that only torturing someone would prevent an American city from being blown apart.
Here, YouTube comes to the rescue as someone's montage not only highlights the question, but also shows how Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) falls for mixing entertainment with policy when he said he wants Jack Bauer to save the day.
Furthermore, will this mixture of entertainment and policy harm politics in America? If the electorate begins to expect candidates to answer to someone recording a question while wearing a hockey mask, will this detract from the larger message the candidates try to send to the entire American electorate? Will this encourage more people to vote in the upcoming elections? If they do vote, will they even know what they're voting for?
Maybe it's time to give this CNN/YouTube venture a shot. Either it'll do much better than the recent performances from handpicked moderators or it'll fall flat on its face. We'll know whether this kind of debate format is good for American democracy or makes a mockery of it.
Labels: 2008 Elections, Democrats
posted by Will at 2:51 PM
1 Comments:
It's so nice for me to have found this blog of yours, it's so interesting. I sure hope and wish that you take courage enough to pay me a visit in my PALAVROSSAVRVS REX!, and plus get some surprise. My blog is also so cool! Don't think for a minute that my invitation is spam and I'm a spammer. I'm only searching for a public that may like or love what I write.
Feel free off course to comment as you wish and remember: don't take it wrong, don't think that this visitation I make is a matter of more audiences for my own blogg. No. It's a matter of making universal, realy universal, all this question of bloggs, all the essential causes that bring us all together by visiting and loving one another.
You must not feel obliged to come and visit me. An invitation is not an intimation. Also know that if you click on one of my ads I'm promised to earn 8 cents for that: I would feel happy if you did click it, but once again you're totaly free to do what ever you want. I, for instance, choose immediatly to click on one of your ads, in case you have them. To do so or not, that's the whole beauty of it all.
I think it's to UNITE MANKIND that we became bloggers! Don't see language as an obstacle but as a challenge (though you can use the translater BabelFish at the bottom of my page!) and think for a minute if I and the rest of the world are not expecting something like a broad cumplicity. Remenber that pictures talk also. Open your heart and come along!!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home