Round #1 Recap: CNN/YouTube Debates

As promised, here's my take on the CNN/YouTube user-generated video debate that aired Monday night (July 23rd). They started off with the challenge of the candidates actually answering the questions posed--which seems was everyone's (very fair) concern along with which videos would be featured (whether real or scripted).

Here's what I liked...

• The idea: I love the program format. Yes, I understand it was used to boost CNN ratings (and against the claims of media bias). But bringing the people--who vote for our country's leaders--into debates can only get candidates and media outlets to start turning back to the people.
• Range: I thought the questions were a great range. From war to healthcare to race reparations to education to gay marriage to Katrina cleanup to sex education, they covered a good amount of ground. Oh, and they seemed to come from all over the country (correct me if I'm wrong here folks).
• Authentic: None of the questions that I saw seemed "scripted" or "staged" (here is a compilation of all the featured videos). All of the videos came across as authentic, user-submitted videos. Agreed?
• Answers: I did like when Cooper pressed the candidates to give a yes/no/firm answer on some of the questions (like he did with Hillary on the Darfur issue as well as others on other questions).
• Validation: I do like what these videos did to help validate the medium. Believe it or not, many of the folks watching this debate have never been on a blog or on YouTube--now, at the very least, know of some of Web 2.0's tools. Perhaps that will pique their curiosity.

...and here's what I didn't like:

• Not equal time among candidates: Some candidates received more air time than others. While many of the user-generated questions were directed at certain candidates--and that's not something that CNN could control--CNN should have done a better job of giving equal time to all the candidates.
• No questions (videos) from outside the country: While some disagreed with me here, one thing that I found exciting about this program were that videos were submitted from all over the world. But those videos weren't represented. Sure, Americans are the ones voting in this campaign but we are a global power and I think it so important to speak to the globe (at least feature a couple videos from other countries).
• No video embeds/no search: To repeat from my first posting, I also don't like that the video questions don't have their own embeds (you had to go to YouTube to view all questions...when the questions could have generated their own convos on many blogs) and I didn't like that you can't search the videos by issue (you have to know the video number).

All told, I'm looking forward to Round #2 (Republican debates this Fall), and I'm very pleased with this format. What do I hope for? That CNN and OTHER media outlets will "listen" to the feedback from the blogs covering this and move to include more viewer questions as a rule, not the exception. I like hearing from the people and I want for others to hear a heck of a lot more from us ;-).

I need to go and make me a video, eh? Hmmm...which issue should I choose?

Comments

[Osama bin Laden]

I know what you mean about having us non-Amercians submit vidoes only to have them not represented. Death to CNN!! Death to YouTube!! I made my video up here in...well, I can't tell you where I am, but I wanted to ask the Democrats about their social media strategies.

[Mario Vellandi]

I loved that they allowed comedic videos which pressed on valuable issues, my favorite being the Snowman and his son concerned about global warming. It was great when Andy then followed up with the direct questioning on how many candidates flew a private jet to get there.

I think one or two questions from the international audience would have been interesting as well. I know the argument against it involves relevancy because this is a national election. But let's get over that. This is America...not Germany, France, Britain or some other G8 power. We have considerable influence in the world and to even for a small moment to acknowledge other international voices, would reflect an outward looking standpoint that would be healthy to display.

[Tangerine Toad]

I agree that it was much better handled than I'd expected and I'm in general agreement with your points: most of the questions seemed aimed at Clinton/Obama/Edwards and a number of them took a light tone.

Which brings me to my main concern, which is that the political blogosphere/intelligentsia will see this as the "American Idol" of debates: too lightweight to be taken seriously. We'll know more tomorrow.

Favorite Answer: Obama pointing out, in response to a question about whether the candidates would work for minimum wage: "the reason so many of us can say yes is that we're millionaires." Made all the other look slimy.

Favorite Video: Edwards "Hair" video. It was smart, sly and did a great job of making a point (for those who missed it, the song "Hair" played over a montage of Bush era disasters - Iraq, Katrina, etc. At the end there was a line to the effect of "Isn't it time we focused on what really matters?") Great slam on his critics.

[CK]

that Edwards video you're talking about is hair...I mean here ;-):
http://johnedwards.com/watch/hair/

[mindblob]

Yes, the format is indeed very interesting. It's a first, right! I like the link between mass (traditional) media and new media (well, not really new... but worth being considered and listened to by mass media now).

Sorry to notice that they didn't open to other countries as well. I am convinced that opinions from around the world are also worth consideration even when linked to a country's elections they won't be voting for. That is the strength of new media and internet. The conversation is now global and politicians should definitely take this into account.

Still have the same question, though... (sorry if I missed that information) : how was the selection of the videos and question made? Did they mention anything about that?

[Tangerine Toad]

@mindblob: CNNs journos picked out the questions. Mrs. T said she was listening to NPR yesterday and someone was whining about how it was unfair that "the people" didn't get to choose the questions that would get asked.

To which the CNN-er pointed out that the most viewed YouTube question was one (seriously) asking the candidates whether or not they thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was a cyborg.

[CK]

@Toad: Yep, I think they were very fair in the videos/questions they featured. Not a single one seemed "scripted." NYT said there wasn't enough debating...not sure how easy it is to debate with that many candidates and 30 seconds per answer. I think the debating happens when there are 2-3 opponents. I did receive more substantial answers on many of the issues from the candidates (I'm not saying they'll stick to those promises but they did give yes/no answers on issues like Darfur, War, Gay marriage).

@Mindblob: Yup, they were going to choose based on "hits" but the videos with the most hits were silly (like the cyborg one). And having some global vids would have been a smart move, IMO.

@Mario: Glad you enjoyed the debate format. Me too ;-)

[Cam Beck]

I'm still a fan of the Lincoln/Douglas-style debates, but I think that makes me a little strange. ;)

I'd still favor putting it out there on YouTube, though.

[Stephen Denny]

I agree with Cam. Getting candidates away from their media training comfort zones is a great indicator of raw intelligence and general comfort with the big issues. In this sense, the YouTube debate was good. However, as with all user generated content, when the vulgate is choosing which questions it's best to have a moderator (even CNN... never thought I'd say that...) picking which ones go on.

[David Berkowitz]

Great commentary as always, CK! I wish I was able to watch the debates live, but I've had to settle for catching up on the coverage instead.

Anyway, while I think it's great for the world to watch this debate, and while the fate of our country has a major impact on the rest of the world, only citizens get to vote, and it's only fair that we locals get first dibs. Once they answer the big questions from the 300 million of us here, then they can move on to start polling the rest of the world.

As for YouTube's searchability, that's a far bigger issue than the debates themselves, though the lack of question embedding surprises me.

[Jon Burg]

If anything, this entire debacle just serves to highlight the tremendous gap between traditional and new media. Traditional media authors view themselves as the drivers and their subscribers as passengers. If we (consumers) are lucky enough to gain access (paid or ad supported) to their content, then good for us.

New media users view ourselves as part of the media. The media car is driven by the community via ratings, diggs, clicks, memes and subscriber numbers.

Kudos to CNN for letting users suggest destinations for them to drive towards, but shame on CNN for failing to hand over the keys to the community for a precious few minutes of poorly rated cable television time.

It's amazing that no candidates have yet thought to bring the debate to the people by posting their own responses to questions on YouTube itself. It's no wonder nobody votes.