The CNN/RubeTube Debate

Over 4,000 Americans have submitted video questions for the candidates who have been humiliated into participating this week in the entertainment marketing scam known officially as The CNN/YouTube Republican Debate. It's bad enough that presidential aspirants of both parties are so cowed by the networks that they have ceded their dignity, not to mention our democracy, to these degrading gongshows, complete with breathless postgame analyses by the same preening interlocutors who posed as neutral referees just moments before. But the faux populism of the YouTube format is an Orwellian leap even for CNN, where anchors are already required to i.d. correspondents as "part of the best political team on television." (Every time Wolf says that, an angel is lethally injected.)

Have you looked at the questions submitted on YouTube? An astonishing number of them are heartfelt inquiries about gayness in America. Lynn and Pat Mulder of Auburndale, Florida talk about their son Ryan, who was murdered in March because he was gay; they ask the candidates what they will do to make this the kind of country where that will not happen. Former Major League baseball player Billy Bean asks whether the GOP candidates will "stop embracing religion-based bigotry against gays and lesbians." If you flip through the posted videos, it seems as though every twenty questions there's the face of a teenager talking about being born gay, a twenty-something talking about being Christian and gay, a plea about LGBT hate crimes, about the Godliness of all human love, about the depression and suicide fostered by fundamentalist preachers and their political fellow-travelers.

You could fill the entire two hours of the CNN/YouTube debate with those questions. But if the New York Times' account of how the seven-person CNN team will select the winning questions is accurate, actually you won't see a single one of them during the televised debate. David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief and executive producer of the debate, told the Times' blog The Caucus that posts "asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage" are "'lobbying grenades' [that] would be disqualified by the CNN selection team... There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas,' and we are weeding those out'... CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesday's Republican event is 'a debate of their party.'"

Not only is this stunningly disrespectful to the many Log Cabin and other self-described gay Republicans who submitted YouTube questions; it's also a telling reminder of the game that CNN is really playing. Sure, their Web site says "YOU ask the questions of the candidates" ("Be original... Be personal"). But if YOU don't fit the CNN profiling division's definition of a Republican, then no matter how personal your sexual orientation may be, no matter how original you are in the way you ask it, the CNN team will yank you from the questioner pool like cyber-crabgrass.

The notion that the CNN/YouTube debate represents a grass-roots triumph of the Internet age is laughable. The 4,000+ videos are pawns; the questioners are involuntary shills, deployed by the network producers in no less deliberate, calculating and manipulative a fashion as the words and stories fed by teleprompters into anchors' mouths. If you want to see what a legitimate grass-roots online debate looks like, have a gander at 10questions.com. At that site, it's not concealed network gatekeepers who decide what citizens' questions should be censored; it's the same community who submitted them in the first place that gets to vote. What's more, they also get to vote on whether the candidates adequately answered the questions. Apparently that's too much democracy for CNN. I guess it would be way too embarrassing if part of the best political team in America turned out not to be on television at all.

Comments

[splashy]

It was VERY disappointing to see that there were just about no answers to those questions on the 10Questions website. Just goes to show you that they don't want to deal with those issues, or don't think they are important.

[ThePracticalVegetarian]

I agree with you that real questions won't be asked on the You Tube debates, not just on the issue of gay rights, as you mentioned, but on all other important issues like the War, the economy, the environment, and everything else that really concerns Amercan citizens.
I've already decided it would be a waste of my time to watch the YouTube Debates based on the last spectacle. Debates are supposed to enlighten the voters on the candidates' positions but in recent times, the debates have turned into mere showcases for the frontrunners and big advertising for the networks showing them.

[deminmo]

I submitted a question to a local news outlet
for the debate. But when it came time to do
the video, I had second thoughts. Its just an
advertising ploy for the local station. I would
rather be able to ask the question in person,
and without the candidate knowing ahead of time
what I was going to ask. Maybe we would get to
hear an un-rehearsed answer.

[dnb53]

It doesn't matter who has the debate. I look forward to watching Ron Paul continually bitch slap these guys all over the stage.

[Janelynne]

CNN and MSNBC are not proper venues for these debates, but they have all money and the clout. There are no television networks that are unbiased. And besides, the moderators are stupid. Bewteen the "lightening rounds" and threat of "buzzers" they ask idiotic questions fishing to sound bytes. Wolf the Blitzer is no Edward R. Morrow, or even the League of Women Voters. Russert is VPOTUS's chat buddy, as we infer from his testimony at the Libby trial. I think Russert could stand to Meet the Press. It isn't him. These so-called journalists are journalists like the doctors on ER are physicians. ACTING! As long as we are suspending disbelief, why not have Tom Bergeron ask the questions? Could the Democrats have their debates on the Sundance channel? Or how about that old cannard, election finance reform? The money that changes hands on TV is obscene and corrupting. Airtime ought to be free. The conservatives hate free.

[rextrek]

I comment on the couples who's son was murdered for being gay on Youtube, my comment to them is as follows,and I think it's accurate:

May I say as a Gay man..While your question is indeed valid...and Sad to even have to be asked in America 2007. You will never get a decent answer from any GOP Candidate...they will "sugar-coat" any answer you're expecting to hear. I Blame the GOP's "Demonizing & SCAPEGOATING" of our Nations LGBT citizens for the last 6-7yrs, that LEAD to the Death of your son...May You Both find Inner Peace! Rex

[gems]

I have a question for the candidates. For each and everyone of them:
DEFINE LEADERSHIP. I'm serious.

Gemma

[Tisori]

Wolf Blitzer is laughable as is his program"The Situation Room" but the joke is on us for financially supporting CNN"s sponsering corporate Bullies and their mouths in Congress.
Instead of interviewing real people,who are bearing the brunt of our failed political system, they concentrate on celebrity personalities and their effect on the primary campaigns CNN is as Bogus as the Fox network and the lackeys who deliver Fox's right wing propaganda

[bowserbois]

And you expected what.....from cnn? I vote every election and read all I can about the candidates, but I am proud to say I haven't watched a single debate this time on the tube. I have better things to waste my time on.

[LeftLeaner]

I was thinking the same.

As the questions are "PRESCREENED", and lack spontaneity nothing has changed.

They are still in CONTROL of the MESSAGE and the QUESTIONS.

It's a SCAM and should be exposed as such.

[DaveScottDenver]

Anyone who believes that this election campaign is driven by the candidates, questioners from the Internet or any candidate "town meeting", or even a serious desire for down to earth discussions (not sound bites) of the issues really important to the body politic, is living in a dreamland from which they may never return.

Sadly for our country and, more importantly, for our place in the world hierarchy and the history of this planet, the media has taken control of this campaign. It's directing its course with a passion that makes Cecil B. DeMille look like a rookie second assistant director.

The media has choreographed the field of both Democrats and Republican and more is the pity.

Example: Gov. Huckabee's "extraordinary" rise from the gray netherworld in which he conducts his public business to a leader in Iowa and a "looking good" in New Hampshire, is the direct result of the "free press" the media has accorded him -- while vastly more qualified individuals are left watching the parade from the media's cheap seats.

Example: In the recent Democratic Debate, Sen. Joe Biden, who is on a "personally knows" basis with world leaders and has 35 years of hands-on experience in government and politics, was shunted to the back of the pack until Mr. Blitzer threw a crumb of a question. Then it was back to the "blue ribbon" media-favored speakers.

Certainly those running for President in each party must know that, to the public at large, "media" has become a dirty, dirty word. Candidates must take back the campaign from the muckrakers who almost totally represent the media in this country -- and MUST DO IT NOW.

Only the candidates can make this campaign a serious full time debate on ALL questions that haunt the public consciousness.

Those who don't encourage a full debate AND fail to encourage the participation of each and every candidate do not deserve our consideration for our country's highest office.

[NHBlueman]

I have one problem with this article and it's the title. Using the word "Rube" paints every person submitting a question to this debate as "An unsophisticated country person."(from Answers.com)

While that may be accurate in some instances it's hardly fair to cast all questioners in that light.

Marty should have been more thoughtful than that, and I'd like to know the thought process behind choosing that particular word, if he indeed thought much at all. It seems to me both thought-less and rude.

Aside from that, I agree with much (but not all) of the substance of the article.

[leaglebob]

I thought the same thing. Just cull thru the videos until you get the questions you want to ask anyway, then champion "the people" as a great new wave of debate. Silly. I don't watch much of CNN, to much self promotion (ie, self defined failure) pop culture, and BS --not to be redundant.

Still, a "valid" You Tube exercise would be to group the videos received by category and then ask the best 1-2 from each category of questions to fill the time alloted?

Maybe the questions would not be relevant to the greater masses, as with the gay questions, but afterall, its a YOU TUBE debate, and if that is important to YTubers, then that is what should be asked.

Atleast it would avoid the pearls vs diamonds BS prompted if not mandated by the talking heads.

Please let us know when the First You Tube debate is aired. I'd like to see it.

[Mikie]

I like the questions coming from real people as opposed to political professionals. Of course, CNN has to edit them down to a meaningful number from the 4000 submitted. This doesn't mean that the questions won't be real, just that they have to limit the number. That you imply that CNN will not have any questions on homosexuality is presumptuous - how could you know this before the debate? I would be shocked if they didn't , not only because it would be short sided, but also because it will be interesting to hear the responses from the Republican candidates.

It is very easy to be a critic (especially before an event) but a great deal more difficult to actually do something. If you can do better than CNN then hold your own debate. By the way, I like the online debate idea maybe you could push that.

[jpalmer]

Yes, the YouTube debates are the worst kind of debate - except for every other one I've seen.

[starboymikey]

Hey, maybe this would be a better way of selecting a president. The candidates all go on Dancing with the Stars, and the best hoofer trots off with the white house.

I handicap it this way:

Rudy? Nahh ... Real men don't dance.

Mitt? I believe that dancing is against his religion.

Barak? Saying he's got rhythm would be racist, so judges will not risk embarrassing themselves.

Hillary? Think Elaine dancing on that Seinfeld episode.

McCain? Think Peter Boyle in the movie version of Young Frankenstein.

Edwards? Ask Ann Coulter.

Huckabee?: See Mitt.

Ron Paul? Name sounds too much like the last Pope. And who wants a president whose ring you have to kiss? Especially while he's swing dancing.

Kucinitch? Most of us can't even spell his name, let alone pronounce it. Judges would likely ignore him rather than embarrass themselves trying. I know I would.

So, the smart money would almost certainly be on Fred Thompson. The man just plain cuts a mean rug. Plus he has the hottest wife. So what's not to like?

[bascombe]

it's all very simple. the voting machines are already calibrated with projected voting outcomes. the msm is preparing us for a pre-selected outcomes of primary votes leading up to the election, where the final votes have already been programmed.

have we already forgotten the voting irregularities IN 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and how they always favor repugs? have we also forgotten how it helped boosh to two terms?

I suppose we'll learn that lesson AGAIN in 2008! MSM IS JUST PLAYING ALONG AND PROGRAMMING US TO ACCEPT THAT PREDETERMINED OUTCOME. Don't believe me? look at what the california AG is trying to clean up!

[UnrealitycheckDotCom]

It's time for a HuffPo-presidential debate. I think she's got the clout to make it happen. If not her, Kos.

[libertyanne]

Nobody with any REAL questions will be shown on these "debates." And it's not just gay issues either. Don't expect to hear about warentless wiretapping, impeachment or the constitution to mention a few.
You might hear some on health care or terrorism (pro-GOP slanted) or softball questions on football teams.
When someone like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich actually remarks in a substantive way on actual issues, the media and pundits ignore them.
But someone asking if Hillary likes diamonds or pearls get a whole segment.
Until the media grows a spine I see no change in sight.

[bascombe]

same thing they did at the democratic debate. CNN, like other MSM, sux big time!

[WillfromSF]

Thanks for pointing out the 10questions.com site. Only problem there is that the candidates, with the exception of Huckabee are not participating. I would probably never vote for the man, because of his policies and religious fervor, but at least he participated and was more direct in his answers than the average candidate in the debates I've seen.

[Kenji]

In this, as in everything, it's all about the editing.

[thunderboltfan]

The Youtube "debates" are news alright, really bad news that it's come to this.

Two things:

1. CNN, along with the Republicans, should realize there is a sea change in progress about gay rights happening among the youth in this country.

2. CNN should just plain wake up. The laughable. lowest-common-denominator programming it still insists on calling news is unwatchable. It's as bad as Fox and some cases, worse.

[THISTLE]

There are no real debates, these "debates"
are packaged and promoted as "entertainment,"
complete with promos touting, "the gloves come
off" and slug fest." The audience is filled
with ringers and "supporters" who boo and cheer.
And faux newsreaders/anchormen ask questions
such as, "what Halloween mask will you be
wearing?" This was the exact question asked
by Brian Williams (aka Ted Baxter)to Obama.
All that was missing was a woman coming on
the stage holding up a sign, announcing the
"rounds." There should be a series of real
Debates - 2 hour debates that address the
following issues:
IRAQ, HEALTHCARE, GLOBAL WARMING, THE ECONOMY.
No 30 second sound-bite answers, no dumb
questions, - just a real debate.
And as far as the CNN/Rube Tube Debate, CNN
gets to select the questions, and we know they
are looking for the "most entertaining questions." Is there any wonder why a moron like Bush is in the White House? Kerry won
all of the Debates with Bush - hands down, but
the MSM keep asking the question "which of these
two would you want to have a beer with."
We aren't electing a bartender, we should be
asking who is the most intelligent, the most
experienced, the most qualified, the most
tested?

[GoreSavingPlanetForJesus]

Thank you...Thank you...Thank you!

Trusting the extreme left-leaning CNN is the first mistake.

Republicans should boycott CNN just like dems boycotted Fox if they want to retain any self-respect.

Of course, CNN uses a cute little Snowman to ask ridiculous global warming questions, and questions about UFO's are always a hit.