New media yields more participation, In CNN/YouTube debate, candidates have less room to spin

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/29/INGP7R7KGS1.DTL

New media yields more participation
In CNN/YouTube debate, candidates have less room to spin their answers

Barbara Warnick

Sunday, July 29, 2007

It's important to note that the CNN/YouTube event on Monday was not a presidential debate, per se. Rather, it was an encounter involving the eight Democratic presidential candidates.

Yet that doesn't take away from the fact that the forum was groundbreaking: It made use of videotaped questions from common citizens about issues of concern to them. Research has shown that "social presence" (use of user-contributed images, video, audio) in mass media can create stronger patterns of identification between the audience and what is presented in the media.

It is likely that this phenomenon was in play during Monday's event. CNN made other efforts to enhance the feeling of involvement on the part of the users, included airing YouTube-style political campaign advertisements by each candidate; having some of the people who recorded the questions in the audience at the Citadel; and allowing one candidate (Dennis Kucinich) to encourage viewers of the show to "text peace."

Such efforts to include the audience -- rather than "talking at" them -- enhanced the entertainment value of the event, but this format works most effectively to encourage public deliberation of issues if the candidates actually answer the questions.

Moderator Anderson Cooper did his best to ensure that this happened by allowing speakers time to address issues when they were answering the question or strictly enforcing time limits when they did not. My tally of whether the candidates answered the question as asked (as opposed to speaking on a topic unrelated to the question) is: Barack Obama, 13 of 16 questions; Hillary Clinton, 11 of 11 questions; Mike Gravel, three of nine questions; Joe Biden, nine of nine questions; Bill Richardson, 10 of 10 questions; Christopher Dodd, five of seven questions; Dennis Kucinich, eight of eight questions; and John Edwards, eight of 12 questions.

One of the more irritating features of the post-primary "presidential debates" is the room they allow for candidates to not answer the question. (And also the ability of their campaigns to control and constrain what is asked.) So the spontaneity, humor and immediacy of question-answering behavior in this "debate" were refreshing.

FULL story at link.

[MADem]

1. The only reason the candidates had room to spin before is because the reporters asking them

questions didn't ask short, precise questions, and instead launched into diatribes that were more about THEM than the candidates.

I like questions that start out "Yes or NO--would you, if you became President..."

The YouTube debate didn't change anything that reporters couldn't have changed themselves--if they had only made it less about THEM and more about the QUESTIONS they were asking instead.

Now, they've made themselves less relevant. It's their own fault, though.