Update: Tuesday, July 24: Several newspapers have interesting commentary on last night's YouTube/CNN debates. Here are a few worthy reads:
Happily, also, YouTube has finally posted all the questions CNN chose for last night's debate. Here they are.
With a bag of popcorn, a Diet Coke and my computer in front of me, I watched the CNN/YouTube Democratic presidential candidate debate tonight on CNN.
YouTube received close to 3,000 videos – many of them serious and legitimate submissions. High-ranking CNN staffers reportedly chose between 20 and 30 questions for the debate. (Read more about the process from CNN.com.)
In an echo of the first few weeks of American Idol (when we get to watch the really bad auditions), CNN played some of the questions it screened out.
Many people dressed up in costumes (Uncle Sam, a chicken, etc.), other people used their children to ask adult question – one person’s 5-year-old daughter asked whether social security would be around for her generation. Toward the end of the debate, an animated snowman asked about global warming (CNN allowed that one in). One group organized an attempt to “stuff the ballot box” by encouraging people to submit the same question over and over, which they did. CNN didn’t include that question, which focused on the future of the war in Iraq.
Overall, the concept was good – it rides the user-generated content wave and combines technology and politics. But the debate generally ran like any other: Question from a video screen (instead of from a panel or audience members), the candidate had a set amount of time to answer, and other candidates had a set amount of time to respond. It was filled with the same promises, accusations, etc. that crop up in any political debate.
Each campaign also contributed a 30-second YouTube-style campaign ad, and each was aired during the debate. Some were humorous (focusing on Joe Dodd’s white hare/hair, for example), others were more serious or slickly produced (John Edwards’ video, for example). It was a nice break from the question-and-answer-and-rebuttal format, though it would have been more fun for each campaign to ask supporters to create a commercial on their behalf.
Early reports had YouTube partnering with GoogleEarth to pinpoint the location of those who submitted video – this didn’t happen. CNN.com did simulcast the debate live online at CNN.com, but You Tube didn’t. In fact, the front of both YouTube.com and YouTube.com/YouChoose didn’t highlight the debates at all during the event. In fact, YouTube’s homepage still had an ad asking for video submissions for tonight’s debate, even though the submission period ended this weekend. (As an unfortunate side note: CNN was so busy shooting the videos from various angles – broadcast style – that it was difficult to see the actual videos, as the size was reduced greatly by wide-angle television shots.)
While I’m encouraged by CNN’s willingness to partner with YouTube on this experiment, perhaps TechPresident’s Joshua Levy was right about this point he made in June:
"But cool technology on big screens is only half (or less) of the technological revolution -- it's really all about the people. To be sure, it's great that YouTube and CNN are involving the YouTube community in this effort. But there's a glaring omission: CNN will be the sole arbiters of what videos are shown and questions are asked. This format is contrary to what YouTube's community of users -- and other online communities like it at Digg, Facebook, MySpace, and elsewhere -- are used to."
Levy’s right: Since it’s a partisan debate (having only Democratic candidates), why didn’t YouTube or CNN host voting for the questions? Perhaps putting all 3,000 up for a vote would be difficult to manage, but the questions screeners could have put 50 of the best questions up to give voters and viewers a little bit more say in the process.
I hope at least one newspaper has an article or brief tomorrow about the local guy whose question made it onto the debate. And maybe the newspaper’s Web site can run the video of that person’s question.
Also, wouldn’t it be cool if a local newspaper took this idea and asked local residents to submit video questions for a mayoral, sheriff, school board president or state governor’s election debate? The newspaper’s Web site could post these local-angle videos as an ongoing series, perhaps with related articles in the print edition, in the weeks or months before the election.
I hope, going forward, newspapers will use this experiment as a jumping-off point for future election coverage – even if it just plants the seed of an idea. Overall, CNN and YouTube did well, and I hope the lessons they learned doing this experiment will inform future interactive debates.