Last week, the Cable News Network tried to forcefully create an historic event … or at least newsworthy moment by teaming up with Youtube in sponsoring and producing a televised conversation between the dirty dozen Democratic Presidential candidates, and the nation.
Me being the political junkie that I am, I obviously loved it loved it loved it loved it.
But why … and where did it fall short, go long, hit on all cylinders, and just plain miss the boat?
Well, the staples are finally out of my leg, my cast is off—and even though I can’t walk on my own power quite yet, I’ve got time to ask and answer some of those questions, AND get YOUR replies.
Here goes.
First—the good:
1. As we have all known for ages now, the American people ask MUCH better questions than pundits. Turns out, if you let them self-edit on webcams in their living rooms, rather than standing them up at a town hall meeting, that wit/intellect/savvy shines through. Also turns out that if you bring them in the studio live to ask a follow-up, they’re bumbling idiots again.
Even if nothing else survives this little experiment, I really hope the idea of pre-producing questions blazes into the future. I’m a political JUNKIE, I watch and listen to C-Span’s Washington Journal EVERY morning, BUT … the “does that hurt ya’ll’s feelings guys, heavy metallic distortion vaguely shouting out a concern with “no child left behind,” and two dykes that I’m glad found each other were MUCH more entertaining and prescient questioners than any of the modern day news anchor/centerfolds would’ve been. They were less obtuse, less likely to ass kiss, and much more precise and specific than the usual suspects/journalists who typically get to ask the questions would’ve been. This is the first time I can honestly say I noticed it, but one of the reasons Politicians always parrot the same answers every time they open their mouths, is because the journalists always ask them the same questions, posed the exact same way. It’s an incestuous little play, and it was good to see the public stripping and grinding for a change.
2. Another high point in this particular debate was the press—represented in the moment by pretty boy and Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper. This debate actually reminded me of WHY the press is important and what we should be doing. That role isn’t to ASK the question, its to make sure it gets ANSWERED. Off camera, they also did a good job, I thought, of selecting and organizing the questions. I don’t mind that part of their involvement.
I don’t want to see the press completely shut out of the debate. I think it’s wise to have some sort of buffer between the potential next Leader of the Free World and the unwashed masses. I’m only somewhat joking. Can you imagine Mr. “Are you gonna protect my baby” actually standing on stage? I thought not.
3. This format actually made all of the candidates look human.
No, really. The world is made up of the superhuman, the normal, and the peculiar. Every group has all three, so it stands to reason that if you stand 10 or 11 millionaire President wannabes on a stage somewhere, all three categories are going to be represented. One thing the more traditional “debate” formats don’t do well, is help us figure out which is which. This one did a MUCH better job. Its not that we don’t already sorta know the answers, BUT … knowing is only half the battle. Seeing how a candidate responds to both the bright lights, AND the unadulterated American people simultaneously gets to be pretty close to the whole enchilada.
THE BAD:
1. Is there some REASON all the candidates can’t answer all the questions?
This one started to bug me as I was watching the debate live, now that I’ve had a week or so to think it over, it REALLY bugs me. OK, it would take a long time. There were forty or so questions, and a bunch of candidates. SO WHAT??? CNN is a 24-hour news network. The ONLY thing coming on after the debate … was a 14 hour stretch of analysis and recap about … THE DEBATE. Does this strike anyone else as weird? CNN, as a rule, doesn’t get very high ratings. Of course, very FEW cable channels get great ratings. Do you believe that Nancy Grace or another episode of Larry King live would actually generate MORE interest than an extra hour or two of the candidates answering questions from the American people? I’d rather see them
2. If they’re not ALL going to answer every question, one thing the press SHOULDN’T do is decide which ONE is going to answer the inquiry on the table.
If I had a complaint about Anderson as the host … actually, let me take a moment to say I think Mr. Cooper did a VERY good job. I realize I haven’t said that yet, and it deserves to be said. He’s not my favorite journalist, but I respect the path he’s followed to get to where he is. He’s a rich kid I actually admire. And in THIS event, he was the right mix of hip and serious to make it a worthwhile venture. But getting back to my complaint … he did what I think journalists should stop doing—following the political script. When a question came up that wasn’t directed at a specific candidate, he always seemed to default to the obvious answer. Hell, I KNOW Kucinich is the one who’s going to say he’s going to raise revenues by canceling President Bush’s tax cuts … I’d rather know if HE would meet with Castro et al. I know Hillary’s position on health care, I’d rather hear about her thoughts on whether a cheater should get to stay in office. You get the idea…
The last thing is just a suggestion, actually. It was neither good nor bad … but it could’ve been better—the actual set.
If you’re going to watch youtube … you should be sitting on a couch, or in this case couches. A living room set with a giant plasma tv that all the candidates could watch would’ve seemed a lot more natural. It also would’ve allowed room for another sponsor, since Apple could’ve finally shown off its TV application … since NOBODY seems to have any idea what you’re actually supposed to use it for, except stuff like this. It also would’ve sparked more give and take, although that might’ve been against what CNN was shooting for, in retrospect.
My favorite question was when the minister tied Mr. Edwards in knots about religion and same-sex marriage. Being a guy who appreciates a bit of nuance with my answers and my coffee, his response makes a LOT of sense to me, although I’m pretty sure that all by itself it could knock him out of contention in at least two or three states.
The questioner who asked the question about meeting the wacko foreign leaders is a genius. As a professional journalist and questioner, his question all by itself was positioned perfectly enough to kick off the first real war between Hill and Barack. Priceless.
Anyhow, there ya go, Sneaky. My thoughts on the debate. I’ve been kinda laid up with this stupid Achilles surgery, so my blogging has been a bit … erratic at best. I’m still alive, still appreciate the notes and e-mails.
Can’t wait until the Republicans do the Youtube thing. THAT should be even better.
Peace,
--Stew.
No comments:
Post a Comment