CNN-YouTube Debate Producer Doubts The Wisdom Of Letting Online Voters Set The Agenda

Wired:

As Republican presidential contenders brace for Wednesday's CNN-YouTube debate, the executive in charge of the event is unapologetic about his decision to put mainstream journalists in charge of deciding which user-contributed YouTube videos the candidates will actually face on the air.

For all the talk about online voter empowerment, the web is still too immature a medium to set an agenda for a national debate, says CNN senior vice president David Bohrman.

Read the whole story: Wired

Comments

[Norm]

05:22 PM on 11/29/2007

Oh, what are y'all complaining about? CNN did great!!!! That was the funniest political reality sitcom I've seen in ages. I laughed out loud through the entire show. Isn't that what you are s'posed to do watching an event that may determine the future of our country and, hey, maybe even the world? There was the "I'm in the pews" moment listening to the sonorous Preacher Man responding to "What would Jesus do?" And damn, doncha know the question was side-stepped? Good yuk there. There was the effete Mitt, so eminently Mitty and Muffy - , gotta ask a few folks his opinion, bickering with John MCCAIN on torture, (The dude lost some serious ground on that one, you betcha, but cracked me up.) The always smiling Rudely giving us peeks at his big ole' thug heart, as he and Mitt pecked each other about their respective (whose is the biggest?) sanctuaries. Punch, counterpunch, pow!

Well, guys, I was rolling on the floor. And you shoulda been. That was magnificent Guffaw Theater. Thanks CNN! So glad you didn't let all the little people ask questions. Boogers mighta gone and gotten serious.

[SeaOats]

01:56 PM on 11/28/2007

The web is immature? I've seen more thoughtful and intelligent discussion in one day on the web than I've seen in my long lifetime on television. Who is this CNN joker trying to fool?

[Graham7720]

12:39 PM on 11/28/2007

Do you not think that this You Tube debate thing is a little bit on the amateurish side? I just find it so difficult to take this format seriously. The ordinary debates are bad enough but having what appears to be juvenile joviality presented as serious politics does not work for me. I think Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who has aired his concerns about the You Tube phenomenon. I agree with him on this.

[conservativeoriginalist]

12:36 PM on 11/28/2007

I wish the media would stop referring to these scripted press conferences as debates. A debate is letting the candidates go at each other, with the only prodding from the moderator is throwing the firecracker and keeping the comments within topic.

If I were running these "debates", I'd have two or three candidates per night, letting them go for each other's jugular on certain issues, and cycling through the candidates over the course of the week on particular issues. There'd be no forewarning of the questions, just the topics.

[Destin]

12:04 PM on 11/28/2007

To quote Mark Ballard.... "I'm baaaaack..... miss me?"


I think CNN has gone to the toilet. Only about one flush above the septic tank that has always been Fox News. What idiot came up with the hiring of Campbell Brown?? What idiot came up with the idea that an alledged "YouTube" debate should be scripted weeks beforehand?? Hell, why even give the premise that citizens have any say at all?? Just tell them that this will be like the election, you'll tell us we have the power, you'll say our vote/comments will make a difference, that our voices will be heard. Pure bullshit and the MSM knows it. Never thought I'd see the day that the MSM would be defined as a CNN/Fox coalition of the shilling. Cause they sure shill for the Oil House, I mean, White House, every chance they get.

My time away has made me wiser, that the country is screwed worse than beyond belief, lol, and everyone is pretending that it's only a market correction. I bet if asked, Napoleon would have told you he had Waterloo in the bag, speaking from exile in Elba.

[fourex]

11:38 AM on 11/28/2007

Not a chance. I don't watch scripted debates.

[beekeeper]

11:30 AM on 11/28/2007

Why would ANY OF US ACTUALLY BE REPRESENTED. NOOOO of course not, let the mainstream sell out journalist run the show. Heck they are the ones selling the whitehouse line of crap.

Pathetic.

[MetalCanuck]

11:20 AM on 11/28/2007

CNN debate will be shit as usual. Ron Paul will make the rest of them look like the dummies they are as usual and CNN will try to make Ron look bas as usual...don't think they are not planning something. Look what they did to Mike Gravel.

[Steamboater]

10:55 AM on 11/28/2007

What did you expect? This is from the same CNN that asked a very young woman (knowing she'd be intimidated enough to follow the request) about diamonds or pearls. CNN also released a few of the questions on air that would be asked and one of them was from a gay man. He talked about his "husband" and their two children and asked why the policies of the GOP group was hurting them etc. That question should have been left for the contenders to asnwer on the spot. They never should have had several days to think about it so they could come up with some middling and sleazy response.

[bullypulpit]

10:37 AM on 11/28/2007

It's a complete waste of time. The debates are bullshit and have been since 1988 when the The League of Women Voters pulled out. Their reasons are quoted below. Nothing has changed.

"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."

[imsosure]

10:20 AM on 11/28/2007

They're afraid of not being in control, being able to fix how things are done before hand. They want a different set of rules for themselves and a different play book too. They are the same Nazi bastards they have always been. I just hope no amount of media attention brought to this lame bunch gets them into a different arena than the previous candidates debate. No special treatment unless they are admitted to have "Special Needs" as "Challenged" people in which cased they shouldn't be in the debate in the first place.

[representativepress]

10:17 AM on 11/28/2007

CNN senior vice president David Bohrman is a clown
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/11/see-this-article-cnn-youtube-debate.htm

With the CNN political team choosing the videos, there is not much chance that a question that should be asked will be asked. Like this one:
http://representativepress.googlepages.com/CNNYouTube.html
My question to Giuliani really should be asked.
See the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd2dwf0OP2A&feature=PlayList&p=E3E0892460AA23D9&index=0&playnext=1

[Ginzaman]

10:09 AM on 11/28/2007

Typical arrogant neocon corporate media crap. They're just afraid of a question that would actually force the candidates to actually answer a question. Instead of a real debate it's cover our asses and f**k the voters.

[kellygrrrl]

10:05 AM on 11/28/2007

the web is immature?

Good gawd, the candidates and the media have not exactly been "mature"

[nevergiveup]

10:01 AM on 11/28/2007

Who gives a flying fuck what these turds say?