YouTube debate to change Presidential Politics...or not
Tonight the contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination will participate in a nationally televised debate co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube. The questions to be answered by the candidates will be submitted via YouTube video clips. This new wrinkle has been generating some publicity on mainstream news sites, but I’m not convinced that this new approach is more than a gimmick that has been latched onto by a press corps already bored with a marathon primary campaign.
On the surface, generating questions from the YouTube community seems like a great idea. The American electoral process could certainly benefit from additional public interest, however it’s generated, and this format might motivate individuals that would not normally pay attention to an early primary debate to tune in. But are people interested enough in the YouTube brand to turn on a debate? I clicked over to the YouTube homepage and was surprised by how little promotion for the event I saw. I expected a banner ad to be plastered across the page, highlighting the key role YouTube was playing in the American electoral process. Instead I found a small sidebar ad, halfway down the page. It was below an ad 4 times its own size, asking users to create a ketchup ad for Heinz. The lack of advertising on the YouTube sight may not matter, as on-site advertising is probably unimportant to the live viewership numbers. I have a suspicion that the type of person that is likely to be attracted to an event by YouTube sponsorship is just as likely to avoid the televised debate and watch short outtakes on the site.
Aside from what effect the YouTube tie-in may or may not have on public interest, another issue with this format is the inability to ask follow-up questions. Any candidate that has ascended to this level of politics, with the possible exception of Chris Dodd, will be prepared for any of the canned questions offered in a debate. The only time most candidates show anything approaching candor is when answering a follow-up question after they’ve already expended their talking points. Removing the circumstances that force candidates to express actual opinions reduces the debate to little mare than kabuki, which is what some people already see them as.
The implied benefit of publicly produced video questions is that the questions may be more likely to address what are seen as valid issues instead of lobbing softball questions that candidates can easily dance around without ever answering. Whether or not candidates have a say in which questions are finally aired, these videos will be just as carefully selected as any other debate questions. Whether generated by e-mail or the League of Women Voters, these questions aren’t going to suddenly reflect the national tone. Real spontaneity and candor is not going to be achieved in these debates, and video taped questions are not going to change that.
Creative questions from the YouTube community might make for more watchable television, which won’t hurt the effectiveness of the debates in the long run, and the use of video may provide some added emotion or context that could elicit a more honest response. Both of these consequences of YouTube generated questions would be positive, but the likelihood of their occurrence is doubtful at best.
There are, however, two cases in which the YouTube debate could make an impact on this race. If some image from one of the videos goes viral it could draw attention to a particular issue, or to the race as a whole. In one previewed video a woman suffering through cancer treatment is asking a question pertaining to the health care system and removes her wig to reveal a completely bald head. If an image like this gets stuck in the collective consciousness then people will remember the YouTube debate as having an effect on the 2008 elections. This seems like a real possibility to me. I can foresee someone that submitted a particularly clever or eye catching video getting 15 minutes of internet fame and parlaying that into some real focus on their issue during the campaign.
There is another, more entertaining, possibility. Amateur video can be a tricky medium to analyze. I wouldn’t want to be the censor scouring these images for something truly subversive. The possibility that some enterprising auteur sneaks in the web address for Nader 08’, or a site devoted to sheep porn is pretty real. Something offensive could sneak through based solely on how sheltered some of the censors might be. I for one would love to see Hilary Clinton try to answer a question about immigration reform that was asked by someone standing in a room full of obscure bondage paraphernalia.
Labels: politics
posted by DC Viking at 3:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home