negative reactions to the YouTube debate
Jeff Jarvis is predictably disenchanted. I respect his opinion greatly, but I am not convinced that "we the people" would have chosen better questions. Simply put: If we'd left the choosing to the view counts, we'd have gotten silly pap. If we'd asked citizens to choose videos via committee, that would be similar to CNN's editorial board, but probably just worse.
Of course Jeff is upset. The truth is that a broadcast medium like TV will always dilute the power of YouTube, simply because TV programs like CNN must speak to the largest audience possible. Meanwhile, the best videos on YouTube are the ones that speak intelligently about very specific issues. YouTube speaks to the individual, TV speaks to the crowd. Hard to merge 'em.
Matthew Yglesias at the Guardian is also disappointed: "The results, predictably, were less entertaining than watching a DVD, but much less informative than trying to, say, read something. The open presentation of amusing video rejects was kind of funny, but much less than the opening episode of an American Idol season, where we actually see the rejects singing. In this neither entertaining nor enlightening manner, of course, the debate greatly resembled, well, the debates of the pre-YouTube era."
Here's another simple truth: National debates among eight primary candidates are silly. They make no sense whatsoever. There's no time to go in-depth on issues. Many of the candidates have negligible popularity. TV is the wrong medium. It's all just a show.
"Here's another simple truth: National debates among eight primary candidates are silly. They make no sense whatsoever. There's no time to go in-depth on issues. Many of the candidates have negligible popularity. TV is the wrong medium. It's all just a show."
It's as if they assumed that the audience would have the attention span of a gnat and that we're fools who live in a cave, playing WoW all the time. Really? I felt like my intelligence was being insulted. Personally.
And afterward, the candidates who were less known to me seemed to outshine the others.
What little respect the viewers had for YT or CNN I'm sure has vanished.
Posted by: Lex | July 25, 2007 at 02:04 PM
While, overall, I'm extremely pleased with the debates - I do think that CNN/YouTube made mistakes in selecting the lineup of chosen questions.
Women make up 54 percent of the population, 55 percent of registered voters and 60 percent of the electorate.
In all recent elections, women have outvoted men (in terms of both turnout rates and actual numbers) in every racial and ethnic group - African American, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander, and white.
So, when CNN/YouTube/Google selected only 24% of the questions as female questions - they created a tremendous credibility and gender gap with the majority of the electorate.
Please read my recent blog entry -
Almost 9 Million More Women - YouTube Blew It?
at EverydayCitizen.com
for more thoughts on this subject.
Posted by: Everyday Citizen | August 01, 2007 at 08:02 PM