YouTube Debates: Fun but Not Revolutionary

The much-heralded YouTube debate appears to have been a success. The American political landscape, however, is not changing anytime soon. While very few are quibbling with the format, the general consensus in the media seems to be that its role as guardian of the public debate is not being challenged by snowmen with camcorders- at least not yet.

The Houston Chronicle is a little less tentative in its take titling its story on the debate "A Turning Point in Politics?" The answer is "yes" according to Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. Said Mr. Sabato, "This was a turning point ... Can you really imagine future debates with just candidates standing behind podiums?" One senses that The Houston Chronicle might have been being a little overenthusiastic as BBC News quotes Sabato as saying "It was a turning point in a sense. This will become part of the process in at least some debates in all future primary and general elections ... It's an innovation and it involved the public and especially young people, and that's all to the good ... Did it fundamentally change the nature of the debate? No"

This take is closer to that offered by staff editorials in Newsday and The Boston Herald who felt the debate was lively and fun but did not amount to anything earth-shattering. Across the pond, the analysis in the Sunday Times was decidedly more negative. The focus of its story is on the inability of the candidates to connect, which would run counter to the entire goal of the endeavor. In the end though, the debate succeeded in the department that really matters: great ratings.