Your impressions of CNN-YouTube debate?
Cory Bergman July 23rd, 2007
So, how did it go? There are a billion reaction stories online, among them…
- NY Times: “Yet while there was a new format for the debate, which was sponsored by CNN and the video-sharing Web site YouTube, the change went only so far: Candidates frequently lapsed into their talking points, and there was little actual debate among them.”
- Tom Shales in the Washington Post: “The major flaw looming over the two-hour telecast was that it wasn’t a very good telecast. CNN put the videos up in a relatively tiny window within a giant onstage screen.”
- Joe Garofoli in the S.F. Chronicle: “Videos conveyed a poignancy that e-mailed questions often cannot…. Questions were asked by atheists and a melting animated snowman as well as by a man who asked the candidates what they’d do to protect his baby — a large rifle laid across his lap.”
So what do you think? A great concept or a failed experiment?
11 Comments Add your own
1. My coverage | July 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
My live coverage of the “debate” is at the link. There was only 1 question that asked a candidate to defend their policies. All the rest asked the candidates to simply state what they are, information that can be obtained from their websites.
I’m sure the MSM and the candidates loved the questions, but they didn’t serve the interests of the American public.
For your point of reference, here’s a real question: youtube.com/watch?v=Q_l4Lawj14A
If you’d like to send a message to Youtube and CNN, watch this 1 second video:
youtube.com/watch?v=fJC84XFmdYI
It just says “CNN’s choice of questions for the debate really sucked”, and if it gets enough views, Youtube might be shamed into making sure that CNN chooses better questions the next time around.
2. Tim | July 24th, 2007 at 4:15 am
I think the format was okay, and the mix of questions was not bad: including some things thrown in for fun, but as in past years, there’s very little of an actual debate.
They also should have found a way to feed the YouTube video directly into the outgoing feed - viewing the screen from an angle half the time was not the best.
3. discreet_chaos | July 24th, 2007 at 4:16 am
I liked the YouTubeness of the debate, but as I commented on another blog, earlier this evening; It seems to me that back in ‘88, when we had the “Seven Dwarfs”, everybody got a chance to answer every question. That hasn’t been the case this season and my impression was that this debate got the furthest from this ideal.
4. Tim Harris | July 24th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Very stupid. Grassroot organization obviously created some of this pr crap seen on YouTube, and the Darfur crap was staged. CNN is managing to brand YouTube as unauthoritative and the voice of the ecentric web crowd, when in fact I would take the voice of the people over CNN anyday.
Why should I trust anything that has big media ideals written all over it?
5. Anonymous | July 24th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Let SPIKE and Ultimate Fighting sponsor a debate now t he YouTube/CNN’s attempt at funny is behind us.
6. thedetroitchannel | July 24th, 2007 at 7:40 am
i say: it’s a start.
could they have done better? no question there.
but to think that WHEN this succeeds “the cash cow of local TV” is cooked, the mere fact that it even took place is quite amazing.
7. David Johnson | July 24th, 2007 at 9:08 am
my impression comes down to the new age-old choice that i lay before my multimedia students and producers: you have every tool at your disposal now to tell a story - video, audio, text, images, graphics, animation - when should you use them and why, and how do they add to the story you are trying to tell and not distract from the story with too much information or -even worse- a gimmicky feeling.
in this case, the video questions work the best when you have to SEE and HEAR the questioner pose the question because it adds volumes of context and depth to frame the question.
i give it high marks. a good balance of gimmick and substance, with many layers of interpretation. at the very least, it is a great talker.
8. Dave | July 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am
I think the reason most of us are unhappy is not the way questions are asked but how they’re answered.
The majority of politicians (of either party) never elevate the discourse above, “Global Warming is bad”, “I love America”, “I support the troops”, “Terrorism is bad”, and “We need better education”. Everything the poll-leading front runners say can be followed with “Well no sh*t sherlock.” That’s the problem with debates.
This is also why the Ron Paul’s, Mike Gravel’s, and Dennis Kucinich’s do so well on YouTube. It’s a medium that allows them to offer a different kind of discourse.
9. Rob | July 24th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Good concept. Flawed execution.
The critics out there are mixed on the execution of the format CNN-YouTube presented but that shouldn’t stop innovation like this from happening.
10. fleetwood mack | July 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
put only nine comments on this thread together with mediocre ratings and the story tells itself.
a stunt and seen as one.
always wondered if anyone was going to focus on how few submissions of questions there were after all that promotion.
always wondered why LR didn’t.
11. Dan | July 24th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Why was the video box so small on that big screen?
When was the last time you saw a big screen
ANYWHERE, at a meeting floor or a TV show
where the screen wasn’t filled with the video of the
subject? It was very bad production. Especially
if you were watching the video of the video on CNN
streaming. The video of the video (on the wide shots)
was so small you could not see what the heck was
going on. Lousy execution if you ask me.
About the idea, well that was good.
Just too contrived and “oh look how smart and cute
we all are to do this” kind of thing.
Dan
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed