Getting campaigning candidates to directly answer questions isn’t an easy task for reporters… or citizen journalists either. The CNN/YouTube-sponsored debate of Democratic contenders on Monday featured videos questions submitted by viewers. (CNN transcript and Reuters video highlights)
The questions sparked a clash beween Hillary Clinton and rival Barack Obama, but do you think the video questions drew more revealing answers than the usual debate format? Comment below.
The New York Time felt “the experiment by CNN and YouTube looked less like a breakthrough in the democratic process than a high-tech town hall.” But blogger Andrew Sullivan liked it, saying the candidates “dodged anyway. But it was more obvious. That’s a step forward. More, please. ”
The CNN/YouTube debate was “fairly good” for Josh Marshall at left-leaning talkingpointsmemo.com blog. “I agree with a lot of viewers who have said that having actual voters posing the questions made it harder for the candidates to duck the questions. Perhaps a third or maybe a quarter, though, were just silly.”
Captain’s Quarters didn’t find the questions riverting either. “Let’s hope that CNN can pick better questions in the next YouTube debate in September, with the Republicans — and that YouTubers give them better material.”
Trackback
6 comments so far
No, if anything, it was set back. Many of the questions were stupid, and basically along the same lines of questions that would have been asked in a traditional debate, anyway. It was not even a debate. The questions were usually aimed at just one or two people. How are you going to get debate when each question is for one candidate only? I’ve heard more heated and informative “debates” on back porches and at coffee houses. If you use this format again, each question should be aimed at all candidates, with all having equal time to answer. Also, the majority of the questions were fairly lame, tame, and humdrum. Let’s get to the answers we haven’t already heard, please.
- Posted by ShannonNo they did not. The questions were filtered. Where was the questions on terrorism and the strong economy? Filtered out. These are issues that are most important, but issues where Republicans have done very well. The YouTube was all smoke, and the questions were filtered to put the Dems in the best possible position relative to the Republicans. Shame on CNN.
- Posted by JimmyThink about it this way: they recieved hundreds of thousands of questions to choose from. Surely every concievable question that could possibly be asked was. The person/people who choose the questions to be asked might as well have wrote them themselves. In fact, all youtube did was make their jobs easier.
- Posted by chaseThese were the most ridiculous debates in the history of debates. To see gimmicky snowmen and songs in the place of actual truth seeking questions was ridiculous. As if George Bush wasn’t bad enough, the world gets another view of American politics we should all be ashamed of.
- Posted by NathanI saw some very good questions that I looked forward to being answered, none showed up.
We even voted on these questions, some that made it were in the negative ratings. Reminds me of the last two Presidential elections, fixed and unashamed.
Waisted hype.
- Posted by p.w.The snowman and the “say something positive and negative about the candidate next to you” were bad questions, the one about slave reparations too.
But many of the others were spot on and highly relevent. One of my favs was about Dem. mandate to bring troops home, which they have failed to do yet. another good one was how religion justifying discrimination is wrong, as it was in the past (in reference to gay marriage).
you’re right about the filtering of the questions…how can that really be democratic? its too bad they picked unpopular questions…but besides some silly apples, it was better than the previous CNN, ABC debates…not as good as the YearlyKos though.
- Posted by J.W.