« Who Asks Better Questions? | Main | How to Study Journalism »

November 29, 2007

You Tube Debate Format Works

I think the You Tube debate format is a success and should be continued. What I mean by success: Candidates are forced to deal with real issues from real people.

The format also works well if, as we saw last night, CNN is willing to allow the candidates to challenge each other and the audience to react (cheer, boo, whatever) when the mood strikes.

A problem remains: CNN chose the questions. That is a legitimate editorial function, but I do not care to trust CNN to do a good job of choosing. Thankfully, CNN resisted some of the more oddball submissions. But several of the questions were purely political and/or partisan (intra- and inter-faction), i.e. exactly the kind of thing we'd expect from certain journalists (i.e. the ones who usually get to host such things). Last night we saw that citizens too can ask less-than-helpful questions.

I cannot easily bracket out that part of myself that is a rhetoric scholar, but I did try to watch the debate as a source of information about issues that concern me (because, among my other subject positions, I am a citizen and a voter). I was pleased to discover that the rhetoric scholar and citizen both found the You Tube format effective in allowing candidates to address issues and to address each other in regard to issues.

Caveat: We're not talking depth here. Depth isn't possible on TV with so many candidates and so little time. But that's OK if many of the questions spring from real concerns (they did) and the moderator insists that the candidates address them (he did).

(Reminder: Following the Rhetorica tradition of campaign coverage, I will deal with issues of rhetorical performance and not issues of policy.)

In terms of rhetorical performance, I was most impressed with Mike Huckabee. He seemed the most genuine of the candidates in terms of giving straight answers. When he ducked, he did so with skill and grace.

I've always had a soft spot for John McCain. I thought he exuded moral authority on most of the issues. I wish, however, he had been a bit more willing to follow the debate rules. Anderson Cooper should have been more forceful with him.

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani suffered from having been placed next to each other--that and they each have a lot of ducking to do regarding past policies that don't sit well with certain factions within the Republican party.

Fred Thompson is an actor, but he's no Ronald Reagan. I found him low on delivery--a rather gross political-rhetorical sin these days.

How should CNN choose the questions for a You Tube debate? Here's my advice:

Don't use anything blatantly political/partisan (e.g. the Bible dude).

Don't use questions from political insiders.

Don't use "questions" that ask candidates to make pledges (these are necessarily dumb).

Don't use questions from people who don't have their facts straight (which means--egad!--CNN should do some fact-checking).

Do use questions that spring from the experiences of citizens.

And, finally, under no circumstance should CNN allow any member of the audience to deliver a speech (i.e. the gay general).

Links:

Washington Post
New York Times



Posted by acline at November 29, 2007 9:12 AM | | Spotlight