Josh,

You "guess Danny yearns for the good old days when televised debates were the pinnacles of democracy"? Why don't you ask Danny what he thinks -- or better yet read my blogs a little more closely. Nothing I have written about the CNN/YouTube debates, at AirCongress or Beltway Blogroll, suggests that I think yesterday's tired televised debate format is worth continuing as is. In fact, I'm one of the people who has argued that Republicans need to accept the invitation to their own CNN/YouTube debate, despite the flaws of the first session.

As for taking off my journalist's hat, what exactly do you mean? That I can't criticize other media outlets (CNN and YouTube) and still be a journalist? I critique the work of both bloggers and journalists on a regular basis at Beltway Blogroll, and I'm pretty sure National Journal considers my work there journalistic.

We're on the same page here. We both want better presidential debates -- ones that use the Internet effectively to engage the electorate; that feature insightful, substantive questions from citizens; and that elicit candid, informative answers from the candidates. So I'm not sure why you decided to take a potshot at me today.

You're well within your journalistic rights to do so, just as I am to criticize CNN, YouTube and citizens who are more interested in a cheap laugh or their 15 seconds of online video fame than in getting straight talk from candidates. But I don't think it gets either of us any closer to our shared goal.

Danny

Danny -

I agree that CNN and YouTube deserve criticism for their handling of the debate, but I was surprised to see you write that the debate "was not a serious exercise in democracy" and call it a "big joke perpetrated by CNN, YouTube and a small segment of the electorate on the rest of America." Was it democratic enough? No. Does the format need work? Yes. Was CNN's partnership with YouTube all about good television? Mostly. But, as I think you'll agree, there was still something new in the air, thanks in large part to the participation of thousands of everyday Americans.

I think we disagree about the quality of the questions asked. To me, the vast majority were thoughtful and challenging -- more than we can say about many of the questions asked by the pros at these events. Again, I was surprised that you were so critical of them; I reacted strongly because I sensed a criticism of those regular people in your comments. Saying that CNN and YouTube played a joke on us implies that we're too stupid to notice...

Taking off the journalistic hat means just that - you injected more opinion into your post than I've seen before, and I noted it. There's nothing wrong with that; I was just pointing it out.

Yes, of course I agree that the CNN/YouTube debate was a breath of fresh air by getting citizens involved. And in hindsight, I'll concede that my rhetoric from the AirCongress post was a bit over the top. That happens sometimes in blogging.

The post was my impulsive reaction after seeing PoliticsTV favor the silliness of the debate over the substance. I had seen the same thing elsewhere, including when I went back and read the transcript and watched the debate clips, and I think it reflects the take-away from the debate. In other words, if the silliness is what people remember about the debate, then the debate was silly.

So while CNN and YouTube didn't intend to perpetrate a joke, when people look back at this particular debate years from now, I'd say there's a strong possibility that it will be remembered as much for that as for the technological and democratic innovation. I think that's a shame.

As for that "journalistic hat," I'd say it won't fit many people at all if no opinions are allowed. You've just eliminated all of the columnists and editorial writers of the world, and 99 percent of the bloggers, including the ones who write for techPresident -- and I've seen some good journalism here, even though it's obviously injected with opinion.

Danny