Monday will deliver a milestone in presidential campaign history,
as user-generated video drives a debate. via
...
CNN/YouTube potential to plow new ground.
Monday’s Democratic presidential debate fuses mainstream news media (MSM) with new media and has the potential of plowing new ground in the 2008 primary.
The hybrid CNN/YouTube debate will use questions submitted on YouTube—since 2006, a growing influence on U.S. politics--while being moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. CNN is picking the questions from the 2,300 or so video submissions (UPDATE CNN is now using 3,000 number) so the event is not a totally user-generated debate. But that’s okay, because if it were entirely that, the candidates just face a kind of automated town hall. Cooper will control follow-up questions with the eight Democratic contenders and see that the pot is stirred. UPDATE: Some videos will be directed to a specific candidate, Cooper just said. via
...
sample question, asked and answered during the debate.
...
i'm placing this entry in the "Culture" category (rather than the "Politics" category) because i'm interested in a discussion of the debate's format, which makes it unique and unprecedented.
Very exciting event. I did not get to watch it (working) but I hope to do it soon. Very direct questions, but I think that what is exciting is that unlike the town hall where you have to stand up and mess up your question, these questions are as edited and careful as the answers.
The format seems to have put people at ease, and from the few I saw brought a certain leveling effect. You did not perceive the hierarchical im-on-the-stage-you-are-in-the-crowd feeling you usually get from these things. Interesting to see how these will begin to influence politics.
What a complete farce. Most of the candidates, with the exception of those who were mostly excluded from the debate, dance with their lovers at CNN better than Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing... "No one puts Barack in the corner..."
I didn't see the debate so I've been picking a few questions here and there to watch.....
I like the format and I do think that it had a relaxing effect on the normally uptight debate style. I almost wish they had taken it one step further and allowed the candidates to sit, maybe more like a panel? I wonder if that would have allowed for a more conversational style, which I think would have been appropriate given the questioners...
OK, I really liked the last question.....it was very positive! And it showed they had a sense of humor, they got to lighten it up a little, I learned something new about all of them and Kucinich got a chance to look like a normal person. Plus Anderson Cooper even got a joke in there!
here is a direct link to the WBUR (Boston) 'on point radio' show from this morning. they spend a quality 45 minutes discussing the format of the debate, its pros, cons, etc.
I second DubK. The last question was a nice change of pace. It showed that these candidates are actually humans and have a sense of humor; instead, of being political robots.
L A M E - there were thousands of Youtube submitted questions. Do any of you actually believe that CNN didn't scour through all those to find the questions that they deemed appropriate?
of course CNN edited the questions, aquapura, but i'm not sure that makes in 'lame' by default. care to expand your argument?
if nothing else, this was a reasonably successful 1st attempt. this ongoing and continually evolving trend (for lack of a better term) of citizen/politician interaction via youtube, myspace, facebook etc. is fascinating...and it will make a meaningful impact on this and future political races...
Of course they looked through the questions. Anderson Cooper stated that fact in the beginning and end of the debate. That wasn't something that they were hiding from the public.
I also enjoyed it because I felt it added a great level of comfort to the viewers at home, to the questioners, and to the candidates. People were able to think thoroughly about their question before filming and submitting their question. It's almost as if they were in their own living talking to one of the candidates. I felt this debate provided a successful and slightly alternative to the normal humdrum of your regular political debates.
I was slightly outraged that every other question was for Obama or Hilary. If they're going to publicize a debate that's meant to be fair, why did Gravel get an accumulative total of 43 seconds of speaking time?
Was he also not the only candidate with a question directly attacking the responder?
Just finished watching the debate. Having seen quite a few others, I think that was the most lively, 'real debate I have seen. Most of the questions were quite eloquent and the answers seemed mostly sincere. The most cautious and 'on-message' candidates were Hilary and Barack. Hilary's plan is to coast to victory, and Barack's to say that we need change. *yawn*
I wonder if the debates will be stop being as good as the candidates get used to the format or if the format will force the candidates to change. Overall, I think the format worked well and hope to see more of them. Archinect debate for that so coveted design constituency?
The debate was kinda gimmicky. The sponsors of the debate are trying to make us believe that we somehow have access to the candidates in an unprecedented way...however there is still a degree of separation between the questioning public and the candidates. Why did YouTube have the be the means of access for the candidates? Why can't we ask them these questions live, in person, on TV? I'm sure the candidates saw the questions in advance as well...I'm skeptical of CNN hype.
i can not wait for the republican youtube/cnn debate!
i have mixed emotions about this format...i liked how it was light, but at points it seemed overly so. and i was not impressed with the questions being so weighted towards the candidates standing in the middle of the stage. also, i know kucinich's background, but did AC really need to make that comment about being leftist? i just felt like gravel and kucinich were not being taken seriously AT ALL, and that frustrates me, even though they are obviously not frontrunners i still think they are running valid campaigns and deserve a little more of a chance to speak.
side bar...have you watched gravel's [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8]rock video[url]?
YouTube / CNN debate format
as user-generated video drives a debate. via
...
CNN/YouTube potential to plow new ground.
Monday’s Democratic presidential debate fuses mainstream news media (MSM) with new media and has the potential of plowing new ground in the 2008 primary.
The hybrid CNN/YouTube debate will use questions submitted on YouTube—since 2006, a growing influence on U.S. politics--while being moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. CNN is picking the questions from the 2,300 or so video submissions (UPDATE CNN is now using 3,000 number) so the event is not a totally user-generated debate. But that’s okay, because if it were entirely that, the candidates just face a kind of automated town hall. Cooper will control follow-up questions with the eight Democratic contenders and see that the pot is stirred. UPDATE: Some videos will be directed to a specific candidate, Cooper just said. via
...
a record of all of the submitted questions, via YouTube...
sample question, asked and answered during the debate.
...
i'm placing this entry in the "Culture" category (rather than the "Politics" category) because i'm interested in a discussion of the debate's format, which makes it unique and unprecedented.
i like the the no bullshit questions. too bad we cant get no bullshit answers.
Very exciting event. I did not get to watch it (working) but I hope to do it soon. Very direct questions, but I think that what is exciting is that unlike the town hall where you have to stand up and mess up your question, these questions are as edited and careful as the answers.
The format seems to have put people at ease, and from the few I saw brought a certain leveling effect. You did not perceive the hierarchical im-on-the-stage-you-are-in-the-crowd feeling you usually get from these things. Interesting to see how these will begin to influence politics.
...
listen - LIVE NOW:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/07/20070724_a_main.asp
What a complete farce. Most of the candidates, with the exception of those who were mostly excluded from the debate, dance with their lovers at CNN better than Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing... "No one puts Barack in the corner..."
Come on!
"You can't serious expect us to swallow that tripe!" "Now as a courtesy from our friends at the Meat Council, please help yourself to this plate of tripe!"
thanks for the link, Quilian. some quality discussion going on there...
I didn't see the debate so I've been picking a few questions here and there to watch.....
I like the format and I do think that it had a relaxing effect on the normally uptight debate style. I almost wish they had taken it one step further and allowed the candidates to sit, maybe more like a panel? I wonder if that would have allowed for a more conversational style, which I think would have been appropriate given the questioners...
OK, I really liked the last question.....it was very positive! And it showed they had a sense of humor, they got to lighten it up a little, I learned something new about all of them and Kucinich got a chance to look like a normal person. Plus Anderson Cooper even got a joke in there!
Although Biden's response was dirty.
here is a direct link to the WBUR (Boston) 'on point radio' show from this morning. they spend a quality 45 minutes discussing the format of the debate, its pros, cons, etc.
Goddamn though the punditry today is unbelievable. When did MSNBC and CNN become centralized spin machines for hillary co?
I second DubK. The last question was a nice change of pace. It showed that these candidates are actually humans and have a sense of humor; instead, of being political robots.
Mike Gravel is craaaazy.
L A M E - there were thousands of Youtube submitted questions. Do any of you actually believe that CNN didn't scour through all those to find the questions that they deemed appropriate?
of course CNN edited the questions, aquapura, but i'm not sure that makes in 'lame' by default. care to expand your argument?
if nothing else, this was a reasonably successful 1st attempt. this ongoing and continually evolving trend (for lack of a better term) of citizen/politician interaction via youtube, myspace, facebook etc. is fascinating...and it will make a meaningful impact on this and future political races...
Of course they looked through the questions. Anderson Cooper stated that fact in the beginning and end of the debate. That wasn't something that they were hiding from the public.
^ Oops, I was late in responding.
I also enjoyed it because I felt it added a great level of comfort to the viewers at home, to the questioners, and to the candidates. People were able to think thoroughly about their question before filming and submitting their question. It's almost as if they were in their own living talking to one of the candidates. I felt this debate provided a successful and slightly alternative to the normal humdrum of your regular political debates.
I was slightly outraged that every other question was for Obama or Hilary. If they're going to publicize a debate that's meant to be fair, why did Gravel get an accumulative total of 43 seconds of speaking time?
Was he also not the only candidate with a question directly attacking the responder?
Just finished watching the debate. Having seen quite a few others, I think that was the most lively, 'real debate I have seen. Most of the questions were quite eloquent and the answers seemed mostly sincere. The most cautious and 'on-message' candidates were Hilary and Barack. Hilary's plan is to coast to victory, and Barack's to say that we need change. *yawn*
I wonder if the debates will be stop being as good as the candidates get used to the format or if the format will force the candidates to change. Overall, I think the format worked well and hope to see more of them. Archinect debate for that so coveted design constituency?
The debate was kinda gimmicky. The sponsors of the debate are trying to make us believe that we somehow have access to the candidates in an unprecedented way...however there is still a degree of separation between the questioning public and the candidates. Why did YouTube have the be the means of access for the candidates? Why can't we ask them these questions live, in person, on TV? I'm sure the candidates saw the questions in advance as well...I'm skeptical of CNN hype.
more radio coverage (Brian Lehrer Show) of the CNN / YouTube format, plus 48 listener comments (in lieu of a discussion here)...
and the link
i can not wait for the republican youtube/cnn debate!
i have mixed emotions about this format...i liked how it was light, but at points it seemed overly so. and i was not impressed with the questions being so weighted towards the candidates standing in the middle of the stage. also, i know kucinich's background, but did AC really need to make that comment about being leftist? i just felt like gravel and kucinich were not being taken seriously AT ALL, and that frustrates me, even though they are obviously not frontrunners i still think they are running valid campaigns and deserve a little more of a chance to speak.
side bar...have you watched gravel's [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8]rock video[url]?
I won the staring contest!!
stephanie, I'm with you. I have September 17th marked on my calendar to see the Republican debate. I can't wait.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.