A Little Q&A

Last night, CNN held it's much-hyped YouTube debate. According to CNN, the debate was a "historical" forum which gave citizens "uncut" and "unfiltered" access to the candidates. According to me, CNN's description is hogwash.

CNN would like you to believe that this debate was a departure from televised debates in the past because of one fundamental difference: instead of being asked by a moderator, the questions featured in the debate were submitted by voters in the form of YouTube videos. At first glance, this looks very high-tech, shiny, hip, and revolutionary. Unfortunately, the assertion that this new addition to the television debate format changes the way television debates work in any meaningful way is plainly false. There is absolutely no difference in substance (although there is a difference in style) between the voter-submitted YouTube videos used in last nights debate and the voter-submitted written questions that have been the mainstay of televised debates for years. In both cases, the questions originate from ordinary citizens; presenting the questions in video form does nothing to make the debate more of a conversation with the American people.

And in both cases, the conversation with the American people is an illusion. Ultimately, the questions that get played or read on television have to pass through television producers who select the questions that they want asked. In all likelihood, the content of the debate would change very little if the producers wrote all the questions themselves.

But that doesn't really matter. Debates shouldn't be judged based on where the questions originate or how stylishly they're presented. They should be about candidates having rational discussions about the issues at hand in order to give voters a clear idea of what their individual positions are. I don't care if it's Jim Lehrer or your next-door neighbor Bernie asking Barrack Obama what his plan for Iraq is; I care about what Barrack Obama's plan is. Debates are about the answers, not the questions.

In that sense, the YouTube debate can be seen as a step backward for reasoned political discussion in America. As soon as the debate was over, an article on CNN.com boasted that,

"The lights and cameras were focused on the eight candidates, but it was the personal, heartfelt and, at times, comical nature of the user questions that stole the spotlight."

The title of the article?

"Questions, not answers, highlight YouTube debate"

Apparently, CNN believes that a good debate is one in which the issues are raised in an entertaining fashion, not one in which the candidates are able to examine those issues thoroughly. I don't want to be mean, but that's pretty dang stupid. Many people have accused television of watering down politics in this country, but very rarely has a television station been so open about the fact. If CNN wants to hold a truly groundbreaking debate, they should try giving the candidates more than a paltry thirty-seconds-to-a-minute to answer questions, and eliminate fluffy queries like "who was your favorite teacher and why?"

There are many things wrong with television debates, but I've never considered un-entertaining questions to be one of them. Nor is a lack of "conversation" between the people and the candidates the primary flaw in our political system. What we need is more in-depth public discourse on the issues facing our country, and CNN's YouTube debate did less than nothing to deliver this.