techPresident - CNN - Comments

What was CNN really doing?

tlsmith — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 00:24:58 -0500

As I look back at the debates, both the Democratic and Republican, it appears CNN wanted to try to mash up a serious debate with an entertainment program. The questions selected generally dealt with gays, God, guns, and immigrants. Their objective wasn't so much to inform us as to highlight differences amongst the candidates, which they did, especially between Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson. Huckabee, the consensus winner of the debate per the mainstream media, wasn't asked a question until about 26 minutes into the debate! One of the undecided Republicans who watched the debate and commented on it for CNN even said that she might vote for Edwards if he was the (Democrat's) nominee.

I have a strong feeling that this format will be back. Perhaps not with YouTube as a title sponsor, but we will see this internet town hall style debate in the future. How do I know this? I can give you 4,400,000 reasons why. That number is the number of people who watched the debate, which is quadruple CNN's normal weeknight viewership.

[places tin foil hat on head] I wonder if CNN had an objective of trying to discredit the internet as a news source so people would turn back to them for their news. [removes tin foil hat]

CNN Demeans the Internet and the Candidates

Tama — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:58:50 -0500

Horrible. CNN did the worst job of all the debates they've hosted. They chose redundant questions that made the YouTube citizen involvement format look shallow; that demeaned the candidates and led them into mud slinging (well ok Romney and Giuliani don't need much assistance in that) and that should embarrass Republican voters. I felt like CNN really made Republicans look small minded and narrowly focused on issues that are not the most critical for our nation at this point in history. How many guns do you own!? The confederate flag?! That ridiculous opening song!? It was appalling and I can't begin to understand CNN's decision making process. Get the debates off of TV. Bring them totally ONLINE - please!

I won't do a separate post

Zephyr Teachout — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 03:50:14 -0500

I won't do a separate post on this because I'm sounding like a broken record, but Huckabee's web site was the best for post-debate. They have an easy to read debate play by play, with its own take, but not as cluttered with spin as Thompson's play by play.

Also, the site has an intro to Huckabee for first-timers at the top of the page.

Thompson's was the second best.

Cup o' Joe

shelbinator — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:57:36 -0400

I think if snagging a few minutes outside of a press event counts as Barack Obama's response to the Why Tuesday? challenge, then certainly cornering Joe Biden outside of a coffeeshop and getting some answers out of him counts as well.

Ummm.

David All — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:23:13 -0400

Yes. I know all about it ;)

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Jokes and journalism

AirCongress — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:37:27 -0400

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

Hats

Joshua Levy — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:05:40 -0400

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.

What Danny really yearns for

AirCongress — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:46:35 -0400

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

Ron Paul spends 3rd-least on Internet

edmondthehun — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:58:43 -0400

The above link puts Paul's minimum online spending as the third-lowest of all the candidates, and several degrees behind the party leaders. This should firmly debunk any lingering notion that Paul's unmatchable online presence is caused by a deliberate, organized focus and not simply a result of his passionate and growing support. Instead, it is the other candidates who are spending money and trying to play "catch-up."

Meme The People

Jeffrey Abelson — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:01:54 -0400

Micah,

Our views are not mutually exclusive. Nowhere do I diss the value and effectiveness of online political organizing. In fact, I repeatedly praise it. What I do encourage is a broadening of the message, to challenge the powers that be to challenge us, the people.

And I prioritize the latter for a confluence of reasons.

We're at a point in American history where the existential threats (from without and within) are so enormous, and driven by such powerful forces (who couldn't care less whether today's brand of R's or D's run the government), that we're simply running out of time for political organizing as usual.

At the same time, we've been gifted with the most incredible, truly revolutionary tool any would-be democracy could have ever dreamed of. My frustration is that it is currently being used only to do a better job at the "game" of politics -- rather than replacing the game with substantive self-governance, which the netroots has the unique opportunity to spark. Right now. Before it's too late.

I agree, there are no shortcuts. Actually, being a student of human nature, I know the odds are low for what I'm advocating ever happening at all. At best, it will take a generation or so to sink into the cultural DNA -- assuming the call is issued loudly, and from multiple mountaintops. And assuming we even make it that far before we're all blown to smithereens, or swallowed up by a Mama Nature who gets fed up with us first.

But that's no reason to delay catalyzing the only process that has a snowball's chance in hell of keeping us safe, prosperous, and healthy going forward.

To wit -- I am not interested in "spreading a message." That's what I mean about the game not being changed at all yet -- and that the netroots are still operating as a collection of special interest groups -- using different tools, to be sure, and using them to do their work more efficiently and with far less money -- but with the same intent, ie:

Spreading the partisan or policy messages of a few to the many.

Rather than spreading the meme that we the peeps -- each and every one of us, for our own personal as well as collective good -- need to assume responsibility for figuring out our own messages.

Unfortunately, that requires reading. And Americans aren't big on reading real news these days. But read it they must. Serious newspapers/magazines/websites. Every day. For life. The good news is that after a while, people who don't have the news reading habit will start to realize they are beginning to organically develop some deeply felt views on this issue or that -- views that come from deep within. It's an empowering feeling. It will drive such individuals to want to know more. And more. And they will learn. And opine for themselves. And one day they will wake up feeling ready -- to act.

Then and only then can I get excited about using the power of internet organizing -- to facilitate real conversations between masses of well-informed citizens -- who would then use the tools to efficiently self-organize, define enlightened agendas, and seek and elect uber-competent public officials to manage the enterprise.

Rather than simply to persuade people to vote for this candidate or that, who will (no matter what they promise) fall under the sway of the many special interests who simply follow nature's course, and fill the vacuum of public indifference.

TechPresident issued an interesting challenge to the candidates recently. I'm big on those with a platform issuing challenges to those on a bigger platform. Imagine what might happen if Kos and Move On, HuffPo and PDF/TechPres, and everyone else with an internet audience started issuing a challenge to the candidates along the lines of what I've previously outlined.

And do it repeatedly, and as part of a long term effort -- one that would also challenge the MSM -- and church and school and pop culture leaders as well -- to constantly remind, urge, inveigle, and if necessary shame every single American who is not poor (and therefore overwhelmed with survival needs) -- to step up and start doing their job as citizens.

Cause if they don't, we're toast.

Jeffrey

Change is hard, and slow

Micah L. Sifry — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 16:30:16 -0400

Jeffrey--

If, as a result of people's new-found ability and pleasure in using the read/write web to talk back to the powerful and talk with each other more than we used to before we had the net, we see an increase in the number of people who fall into the category of political activists (someone who goes to a political meeting or event, writes a letter to or calls their representative, creates or spreads political information to others, knocks on doors to get out the vote or raise money, makes a political contribution) rises from, say, five percent of the 18+ population (approx. 10 million people) to, say, ten percent (20 million people)...are you going to say, nah, why bother, "the VAST majority of the American people refuse to take their jobs as citizens seriously" and therefore little will change in the behavior of politicians?

I think you underestimate the power of organized minorities in American politics.

Also, while I certainly share your goal of a much more engaged citizenry and a much more accountable set of elected representatives...how else do you propose to get from here to there? An old organizer friend of mine always says, "There are no shortcuts in politics." What's so intriguing about how the internet is how it is subtly altering the structure of the political game, in my view, to the benefit of people who previously had little way of participating meaningfully (and thus tuned out). It's not a complete coincidence that the general decline in voter turnout in America that started in 1960 (the last election with 60%+ participation) coincided with the rise of television and capital-intensive broadcast politics. Now, while that world isn't going away overnight, it is being challenged and altered by a new system that makes it much much cheaper to organize people and spread a message.

Micah

Vague Daily Show Links

Alan Rosenblatt — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:48:27 -0400

I agree... they put it up for free on their own site, but not on YouTube. Seems silly. But even putting it on their own site is problematic. There is no direct link to any specific video. You have to hunt through all the clips to find the one you want and they don't keep them up forever.

Alan Rosenblatt
AKA DrDigiPol (drdigipol.com)

The more things change...

Jeffrey Abelson — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:36:33 -0400

As a professional filmmaker and editor allow me to compliment your first video. It is visually engaging without being distracting. And it is concise and informative.

On the issue discussed however -- the seemingly omnipresent YouTube Revolution Cheerleader squad is, from my perspective, missing the elephant (and donkey) in the middle of the living room.

The problem is not that journalists don't ask the right questions, or that better questions can be asked by average citizens (if you can call the tiny sliver of the adult population that knows/cares about posting a video to YouTube representative of the citizenry at large, which you manifestly cannot) -- the bottom line, as most of the squad admits, is that the pols respond no differently.

The reason they do has nothing to do with the nature of the questions, who is asking them, or what format they're delivered in. It's because the politicians know who they are talking to -- a nation which is, by and large, filled with citizen slackers. Civic apathy, and the civic ignorance that flows from it, is rampant in America. Read the recent Pew study on "Public Knowledge of Current Affairs" for some bleak statistics
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=319

I constantly beg my blogging friends to stick their heads outside the bubble once in awhile. The political activism on the internet is fantastic -- but it not only represents only a small fraction of the population, and often in only a narrowly partisan way -- but more importantly -- even though they have the tools to do so, the bloggers and net activists do next to nothing to reach out to 99% of their fellow countrymen who are not part of their "conversation." And until you do, the netroots is just another collection of special interest groups. Groups of folks with an agenda that they want to see implemented, regardless of what the rest of the country thinks. True, they have revolutionary new tools to do it with, and those tools and their own creativity makes them effective. But the goals remain mired in Politics 1.0.

I'm not saying I don't love the netroots, I do. Nor am I saying I disagree with many of the progressive goals shared by most of them. I am saying -- use your growing power more broadly.

The painful reality is that the VAST majority of the American people refuse to take their jobs as citizens seriously. Unless that changes, pols will always evade and pander. You can tinker with debate formats all you want, but until and unless you create a series of debates (and other forums) where candidates are asked, over and over, if they have the courage to channel JFK and challenge the average apathetic American -- to ask us to "ask not" -- but instead to truly measure up to our obligations as citizens, by fully informing ourselves and engaging in a real way in self-governance -- until that happens, absolutely nothing substantive will ever change for the good -- not in debates, not in journalism, and most critically, not in public policy.

Jeffrey Abelson
http://apathybusters.blogspot.com

Levy, the next Anderson Cooper?

Fred Stutzman — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:34:24 -0400

That video was rad!

Daily Show website

Peter Erickson — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 06:36:21 -0400

What I don't understand is that Daily Show videos, each and every episode, are available for free on their website, including the YouTube debate analysis here.
They keep toying with showing advertisements between clips but at the moment they don't have any, though there are a couple click ads in the margins. Why not at least release a few on YouTube to generate interest and direct people to the website?