Thursday, November 29, 2007
|
|
Should We Republicans, Young and Old, Pretty Much Confirm the Old Fogey Republican Stereotype for All Time By Torpedoing New Technology Experiments and Debates in Light of The Problems With This One?
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
1:10 PM
|
Update: I'm razzing my friends with the title. Obviously, they are not opposed, necessarily, to future experiments, but the curmudgeonly tone of all this, "I told you this wasn't going to work!" business seems to me to be misplaced schadenfreude.
A: No, CNN's doing a fine job of torpedoing them itself. Buh-duh-ching!
I've gotten into the ol' New Media and politics discussion with a couple folks on the Right who had issues with the YouTube debate format-- some before the debate and some after. On the whole, I think the technology's new and you're gonna run into issues implementing it at first, but that the fault for debate screw-ups lay with CNN last night, not increased technology.
I've never bought into the idea that YouTube debates were a revolutionary format-- different but not revolutionary--mostly because moderators still pick the questions, and technology's transformative only to an extent. I'm not a tech triumphalist.
I've also never bought into the idea that YouTube debates debase politics, partly because they're already plenty debased, and partly because political YouTubers are-- to a great extent-- regular Americans who want to be engaged and get a chance to ask their own questions of a candidate that they wouldn't necessarily otherwise get. That's not debasement, that's democracy.
Here's what I wrote to the group I was speaking to:
Well, I hardly think the Republic was damaged in any lasting way, and to act as if it was is overwrought. In truth, the first 1/3 or first 1/2 of the debate (the part more people watch), started some pretty good in-depth debate on serious issues that conservatives care about. It was some of the most entertaining and informative I’ve seen from the crowd this year. The second half of the debate was where the gotcha questions and secret operatives showed up, which is either a happy coincidence or a CNN producer aware of the vetting issues hedging his bets by backloading the debate to make things look slightly better.
I’m with N.Z. It wasn’t YouTube that caused the problem; it was the picking of the questions and the lack of vetting. I thought Anderson Cooper was quite a bit too lax about that when I interviewed him on Monday (warning: apropos pimpage):
AC: “Well, campaign operatives are people, too. We don’t investigate the background of people asking questions…that’s not our job. Last time around (in the Democrat CNN/YouTube debate), there were questions from Joe Biden’s campaign…and we had some fun with that (disclosing who they were posed by). Things like that are generally pretty obvious. In watching these videos after a while, you can kind of tell, who’s really serious about an issue and who’s just parroting a press release or a talking point.” Yikes. When you’re doing user-generated questions, there’s always a possibility that motives will be suspect and operatives involved, but it’s incumbent upon news organizations to do the not-very-hard work of Googling people to prevent it. I’m not sure how you govern the whole thing. In large part, I think we have to rely on a good-faith effort by those conducting the debate to disclose pertinent information, but in the end, good questions are good questions and I don’t think it necessarily invalidates them that they’re asked by Edwards supporters or whomever as long as it’s disclosed. I thought there were quite a few last night and they came from the real folks in the first part of the debate. CNN fell down on the job in the second half.
But ultimately, I don’t think there was any good political way to decline to do the YouTube debate. I was talking to some of the YouTubers at the debate, and asking what they thought about the idea that we’re debasing the political process or that the talking snowman distracts from real issues, etc. She said:
“It’s up to the candidate to outshine the question. If he can’t outshine the snowman, maybe he shouldn’t be on stage.” It’s true. If you turn the debate down, you look not as if you’re lifting up the level of debate in American politics. You look like you’re afraid to face down an animated snowman, and you cement an unhelpful image of Republicans as irretrievably unhip and the right-wing web as irretrievably mired in its inferiority. CNN’s gonna have question issues no matter what, it seems. Why avoid this debate and make our side look bad instead of letting CNN taking the flack, as it should?
|
|
Mary Catherine:
I have a slightly different take on this issue. While most people here agree with the format (YouTube Questions) and disagree with the lack of journalistic integrity from CNN, I believe that the format significantly demeans the Office of the Presidency. To reduce debate questions to the lowest common denominator degrades our political process.
Having said that, here are some suggested questions you could ask Anderson Cooper and CNN the next time they sit down to talk....
1. Some of the most critical issues facing our country today include Global Terrorism, Border Security, Immigration, Energy Policy. Why did CNN chose to ask a question on Gays in the Military? When has Gays in the military been a leading issue anytime lately??
2. The Executive VP of CNN stated that this debate was for undecided Republican voters to decide which Republican candidate to vote for. Why were their Democratic supporters in your "undecided" group?
3. Former President Bill Clinton implemented the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Why didn't CNN ask this question of Mrs Clinton or other democratic candidates?
4. It appears that CNN selected questions for the Republican debate based on stereotypical veiwpoints of what Republicans stand for. For example the question referncing the confederate flag implying that Republicans are racist bigots that must answer why they believe this. Why did CNN chose to frame the debate with questions that were intended to make Republicans look like racists, bigots and homophobes?
I'm sure there are many other questions you can think of that will drive home the point to CNN that they have lost their journalistic integrity, honor and "unbiased" status as a news organization. CNN and Cooper think they can do with this no consequences and they need to be challenged and defeated. |
|
Mary Katharine wrote;
---------------
"If CNN's the problem, then shouldn't Republicans just say they'll do no CNN debates? Well, then they're as bad as the Dems with Fox."
---------------
No, there's just not a moral equivalency there.
The GOP candidates HAVE SHOWN UP on CNN for debates.
If they decide not to do any more, it's because they learned from a bad experience.
It's like a child learning from getting burned by hot water that "that's the hot water faucet !" and deciding not to use that faucet any more.
On the other hand, the Democrats are too chicken to show up on Fox News, period.
They haven't been burned---they're just too chicken to turn the faucet to see what kind of water will come out.
Furthermore, the GOP candidates are NOT afraid to take questions from professional CNN journalists whose reputations must stand beind the questions they ask.
They just object to taking questions from Democrat operatives POSING as Joe Average Republican.
And on the other hand, the Democratic candidates are afraid to take questions from professional journalists such as Brit Hume and Chris Wallace.
Besides, I imagine the GOP candidates would still do another primary debate on CNN---just as long as there are professional journalists asking the questions.
The Dhimmicrats won't appear on Fox News no matter who is asking the questions.
There's just no comparison.
|
|
|
The problem is not the technology. The problem is the Libs are, like everything else, committed to perverting all technology into a vehicle for their loony platforms and conservatives leave it to them to do. If conservatives would take a Youtube debate and do it correctly, we could show undecideds how the technology can be used for intelligent thoughtful debate. Several conservative blogs do a very fine job at this, but they are vilified as right wing wackos. Those of us who are involved know this is not the case, but we can only do so much. If the republican party could take charge of a Youtube type debate and run it the way it should be run, I am sure more people would be inclined to give the technology a chance. |
|
But not because the technology was too much. I didn't like it because the focus is on getting "independent voters" to ask questions.
I would much rather have a panel of conservatives ask questions that help we "Republican voters" identify those who align with our party views. Have William F. Buckley ask about economic issues. Have MKH ask about anything, just give her more camera time to keep the whole debate appealing. |
|
S. Wallace, how does Fox get the ratings that it does? It ran more Anna Nicole coverage, more car chases, and more who-stole-the-white-baby stories than any other network this past year.
Fox also leads the networks in its willingness to show borderline pornography in order to boost raitings. Go ahead, ask for the link. Fox News is low brow and downmarket. It's all about absurd graphics and ridiculous shouting matches, the "War on Christmas" etc. Too bad the other networks have copied some of the baser aspects of Fox by featuring gimmics like Dodd, Cafferty, Glenn Beck, Olberman, and Nancy Grace. But this is the "standard" that Fox has set.
It's ultimately apples and oranges, with some crossbreeding going on here and there. CNN, like most MSM outlets, has and always will have a leftward slant. It still aspires to be something of an objective news org though. Fox on the other hand is more about entertainment and creating a space that's safe for people who like Bush. They've built their market on these two planks, and they don't seem to deny it. My fear is that in the drive for ratings we'll see increasing levels of partisan vitriol within the MSM in an attempt to mimic Fox. More Olbermans, more Dodds. I get most of my tv news from Lehrer actually. PBS may lean left, but at least it's civil and doesn't insult my intelligence. Lack of adds is nice too.
|
|
Which is that when you are forced to react against a network because of their own misbehaivor, you do run the risk of cutting of your own nose. Coverage, after all, is coverage.
I do have something of a solution, perhaps not ideal, but workable. CNN, MSNBC, Fox are supposed to be reporting the news, not participating in it. I think that is the nub of the complaint with CNN right now. One presumes they would still deign to cover the news even if they don't control it themselves--it does seem to be their business model for most everything else on their networks (unless they've been planting Al Qaeda operatives also).
If that is so, then consider this. ESPN carries Sunday Night Football but does not put on the games--the NFL does. NBC carried the World Series but does not set the ground rules--Major League Baseball does. Given that then, I ask what engraved tablet says that networks, and only networks, should be the ones putting on debates? And that journalists, and only journalists, should be the moderators?
I think the parties need to take their major debates back. If, in the old days, the argument against this would be that the moderators would then be viewed as biased and giving leading questions instead of independent searchers for the "truth"--well clearly we have avoided that problem by using MSM journalists, no?
No, the parties need to take their debates back. I'm sure moderators of integrity and good temper can be found, and a variety of different formats used. Even YouTube.
In fact, to make sure it is probing, I would even propose two moderators--one from each party. Then the fur can really fly.
And who knows--if one of the debates had a referee vice a moderator(s), maybe the candidates could stray back into Lincoln-Douglas territory. Assuming they had the horsepower to do so, sans talking points.
|
|
If you think that CNN can continue this kind of behaviour and long be thought "normal and respected" amongst the general mass--well, good. I would not attempt to disabuse you of that notion.
It however, is not an assumption I myself would make, if CNN was an ideological soul mate and I wished to have their influence and prestige kept intact.
As far as the market, while neither CNN, Fox, or the CBN get much of my business--none, in fact--I do believe there has been a rather emphatic statement vis a vis CNN and Fox's market share in the last decade. Though I could be wrong.
Yes, Cooper will continue to do just fine. I just doubt he will do better. "Market cap", methinks.
And rediscovering the known and stating the obvious is necessary when the other side knows so much that is just not so. After all, as Orwell said, it is the first duty of intelligent men to restate the obvious.
Good luck on next year's "futures" options. |
|
|
The Snowman has more credibility than Anderson and Wolf combined. |
|
Actually, I thought the questions did no damage, were handled reasonably well, and weren't even that bad, per se.
The fact is that some of those questions were about issues that the Republican party differs from the other party, that will come up in the general election, are somewhat contentious, do somewhat make the conservative movement lose face with the broader populace--and thus were somewhat fair game to see not only if the candidates could handle them, but if they would reject the premises upon which the questions were based. That did happen, especially regarding the Confederate flag and locking up women who get abortions.
This is thus not a complaint about results.
It is instead a complaint about a man who asked a question and received an answer--which he might not have liked, but he did get—but then was given a microphone so as to have a few additional minutes of potential candidate squirming on stage. Who else was given that microphone? And was any conservative given that microphone in a Democratic debate?
It is a complaint about how persons linked with one side can get themselves interjected into an intra-party debate, but the obverse seems to never happen.
It is a complaint about why a network would, only a few weeks after being scoured on the issue of planting questions, not thoroughly vet the relatively small number of questioners it finally decided upon.
It is a complaint about how all the media "mistakes" somehow, curiously, perplexingly always seem to come down against one side and not the other.
It is in short, a complaint born of the fact that an organization--CNN--long suspected of leftward tilt is caught in something that can only be charitably described as amateurish, and that free persons, having deciding that this time they have had just about all they intend to take of this kind of stuff, don't feel too terribly charitable or forgiving any longer.
|
|
Talisman is right,
Of course the bottom line in all of this is that the GOP is upset because last night's debate exposed them for what they are - a party more concerned with rebel flags, Bible skillz, guns, abortion, and xenophobia than a party that will be able to pull us out of a Bush and Co. induced mess.
So they've constructed this absurd CNN Conspiracy theory to make up for it. The debate's outcome had nothing to do with the technology, the network that hosted it, or the videos that were submitted. It had everything to do with a group of dead-end candidates pandering to a base of rednecks. Even if they try to rely on Fox or CBN's ability to whitewash this truth, it'll still come out in the end and a majority of Americans aren't going to go for it. SoyBomb predicts a massive GOP defeat next fall.
|
|
Please please please urge your GOP candidates to stick to friendlier venues like Fox and the Christian Broadcasting Network. That's where most of their support is anyway. They really don't need to reach out via CNN or any normal and respected MSM outlet. They should also give up on campaigning north of Mason-Dixon too, and they should probably stay away from cities and college campuses down there as well.
And thanks for discovering the known and stating the obvious: "While the final verdict and punishment should be rendered only by that free people acting through the marketplace."
The marketplace has spoken loud and clear on this and the verdict is that no one gives a poop about the whole CNN "debacle" and Cooper will be OK. CNN will continue to be the main venue for events like this and other debates, and the "market" will ultimately elect an overwhelming Dem House, Senate, and Pres next election. |
|
|
You guys are always taking unwarranted aim at CNN. This is a case of seeing the venue as a problem and overlooking the {GOP} elephant in the room. The results of this debate are only as good as the players involved, and therein lies the rub.... |
|
"If CNN's the problem, then shouldn't Republicans just say they'll do no CNN debates? Well, then they're as bad as the Dems with Fox."
No, they aren't.
That's like saying because we send a kidnapper to prison and deprive him of his freedom, we are as bad as the kidnapper. It leaves out certain pertinent facts, like, who the offending party was to start with...
The simple fact is that CNN, in the space of a few weeks, has hosted two debates and has shown--by its own actions--that it lacks either the strength of character, the intellgence, or the maturity to be an honest broker. Period. Full Stop.
Now, maybe Fox would do that to the Dems if they held a debate. I really doubt it, but stranger things have happened in this world, so it's possible. But the fact is that the fraidy cats on the other side did not take up that challenge. Well, that's them, and their choice.
But to say just because one side has decided to do something because of their fears of what *might* happen is to be conflated with the reactions considered acceptable by another side when something *has* happened is to arm every person who acts not in good faith with the assurance that their actions will never go checked. I reject that.
CNN has shown it cannot or will not handle the awesome powers of a free press in a way beneficial to the ability of a people in a free Republic to make unbiased and informed decisions. While the final verdict and punishment should be rendered only by that free people acting through the marketplace, I see no reason why conservatives should any longer continue to play a rigged game with them. If Republicans go onto another CNN-sponsored debate they will deserve any and all that happens to them.
|
|
I don't get it - the questions brought out how Mittflop flips (especially on the same sex issues), how Rudy dodges and lies (especially when cornered about diverting funds as he was taking up with his paramour in the Hamptons), how McCain will flog his opponent with sanctimony on Iraq.
Basically, nothing new, except with questions asked by guys eating of corn. Frankly, the Youtubers asked better questions than any of the news organizations and pundits alike. |
|
Mary Katharine wrote;
------------
"Problem is, many of the questions were very good, toward the beginning of the debate, and the merit of those questions have been entirely overshadowed by the crappiness of the later ones."
------------
I agree there were some good questions.
But the merit of those questions has not been compromised, rather, THE MERIT OF CNN as the host of the debate is what has been compromised.
Mary Katharine also wrote;
------------
"If CNN's the problem, then shouldn't Republicans just say they'll do no CNN debates? Well, then they're as bad as the Dems with Fox."
------------
The GOP shouldn't do any more YouTube debates on CNN since CNN has proven they cannot effectively do the most BASIC screening to ensure that operatives for Hillary Clinton are not lying and posing as Republicans.
Additionally, when it comes to the GENERAL ELECTION debates, the GOP must play hardball with determining which networks/journalists host the debates.
That means the GOP must insist that Fox News should host 50% of the general election debates---and nothing less.
As far as continuing to do any more CNN debates during the primary season, Anderson Cooper would not ask questions that he isn't willing to stake his professional reputation behind.
Cooper can't hide behind Frosty the Snowman in a traditional CNN debate.
On the other hand, the reason the Dems won't do Fox News is because they're afraid of tough, straight forward questions about national security from Brit Hume and Chris Wallace.
But they don't fear that Fox News will sucker-punch them with questions from Karl Rove or Kevin Madden.
Remember, this is a GOP primary debate.
In a GOP primary debate, the questions that should be asked are questions that are important to...actual registered Republicans(!)...rather than actual registered Clinton campaign members.
|
|
|
That is a a combination of a generational thing and a media thing. Even though talk radio is derided by the left as the megaphone of the right, most of those in the business are of a similar mindset as the editors at the big paper or TV network when it comes to control of access because they came of age during that era. Yes, the Rush Limbaughs (here in Milwaukee, Mark Belling) are a bit more open and the Hugh Hewitts (again locally, Charlie Sykes) are a lot more open than the editors, but because they came up in the era of complete control, they just can't quite embrace the new media and its absence of control. |
|
That, specifically the post-debate revelations, is what completely soured me on this particular episode. I went to bed last night fully-intending on handing out a lengthy, well-researched report card, even though I knew about the first plant. It was the other 5 that flipped me out.
That having been said, I'm not soured on the concept of having non-professionals ask questions. After all, I've seen it done right, though not in a debate setting. Just don't ask me to do the questioning :-) |
|
|
There has been an argument made by many whom I respect-- Hugh and Rush, for instance-- that the technology itself degrades American politics. I just don't think that's an issue, but there are conservatives who have an inherent problem with the actual technology being involved with a debate. |
|
I see the argument, and understood where people were coming from from the beginning even if I didn't agree.
Problem is, many of the questions were very good, toward the beginning of the debate, and the merit of those questions have been entirely overshadowed by the crappiness of the later ones. People are now using those questions to say, "hey, I told you this YouTube thing wouldn't work," instead of saying "I knew this CNN thing wouldn't work."
If CNN's the problem, then shouldn't Republicans just say they'll do no CNN debates? Well, then they're as bad as the Dems with Fox.
And, in the end, a YT debate with Fox would be better, but that wasn't what was on the table, and it behooves Republicans to not run scared from technology or be perceived as doing so. |
|
You people are unhinged. Real red state Americans got to ask questions about the things that mattered to them. Stopping Mexigrants, torturing enemies, gun rights, knowledge of the Bible, and whether or not the Confederate flag should be allowed to fly on govt. grounds are all very important to the GOP's base. These questions were asked and were more or less answered.
It looks like five or six videos may have slipped in from folks who have connections to or affiliations with Dem candidates. They asked about gays in the military, guest workers, etc. The candidates more or less answered the questions. How does any of this constitute a major screw up for CNN?
|
|
Yanno they didn't get too far the first time either.
Orville's brother Wilbur piloting the record flight lasting 59 seconds over a distance of 852 feet.
852 feet... that really doesn't help the turn around time to the coast does it? But in time flight worked out more or less okay.
HERE"S YOUR SIGN:
I guarantee CNN is wearing a sign that says MORON around for awhile.
The web is here to stay people should get used to it .... CNN and the other Media Biggies better learn that bloggers are gonna be on their butts like white on rice.
If they get caught misleading ... it will cause (emotional) bleeding. |
|
Mary Katharine,
The objection isn't to the technology, per se, rather, the objection is to the WAY in which it is filtered or used by CNN.
By the same token, a butter knife is a great 'technology' for spreading butter or jam---but it can also be used as a weapon.
By allowing questions from allegedly "anonymous" people on YouTube, it absolves CNN of direct responsibility for questions.
They can hide behind excuses such as "it wasn't OUR question," or "we didn't know he was a Clinton operative !,"---exactly as they're doing now.
CNN has a left-wing bias, and cannot be trusted to handle questions to GOP candidates from allegedly "anonymous" YouTubers.
The most basic background check on the General would have revealed that he is on Clinton's campaign team.
On the other hand, when a pro such as Tim Russert asks questions, he must stake his reputation behind it---for instance, look at the way the Clintons went after him after the debate several weeks ago. Or look at what happened to Dan Rather with the fake memos---he lost his job.
These "anonymous" YouTubers in effect, act as a proxy for lefty journalists to ask questions that they wouldn't want to stake their own professional reputation behind.
Now tell me, what are the consequences going to be for CNN, or the General ?
Absolutely nothing.
If Fox News, The Weekly Standard, Townhall, National Review, or the RNC were doing the YouTube debate, that would probably work out much better.
Again, it's not that we're opposed to the technology of YouTube---we're opposed to trusting a LEFT-WING OUTLET such as CNN to pretend they intend to be fair to the GOP.
Agreeing to allow CNN to be in charge of a debate involving YouTube videos is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house...or putting Sudan as the chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission. |
|
|
Both parties are dominated by establishment who are averse to the democratization inherent in the new medium. The reason Democrats are more open to YouTube debates is because CNN is a Democrat Party organ and can even control the Republican debates. The way to open it up is to have the debates directly online. It's a bigger audience as more people subscribe to the internet than to cable television. I predict both parties will refuse to go along with this format unless they can plant their own favorite journalists as gatekeepers. It won't include the Matts, MKHs, Patricks, Jonathans or Hughs. That is why we need a second party. Townhall needs to stop kow-towing to the GOP establishment and see the future. I would love to see a GOP debate conducted by the Townhall/Powerline crowd. Why not give it a try? |
|
|
... because I believe that this effort to find our next president is a very serious matter and is demeaned by the "boxers or briefs" "diamonds or gold(?)" dialogue. Just because people want to be childish is no reason to give in to them. In fact, it is wrong to do so. |
|
|
...let's cut out the middle-man. I'm reasonably-certain a joint TH/HA production would draw more viewers than an MSNBC debate. |
|
|
|