Comments on: Their debate

By: Everyday Citizen

Everyday Citizen — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 03:01:08 +0000

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.

By: Elizabeth/BookTestOnline.com

Elizabeth/BookTestOnline.com — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 01:57:49 +0000

Hi Jeff,

I watched some of the debate. Also, agree with
several of your points. I watched only to see
what the YouTube was all about. The 1 person video
became boring after 15 minutes. I think next time
the videos should be with a group of 50 people or
more.
Thanks,
Elizabeth G.
http://booktestonlinecom.blogspot.com

By: YouTube Winner In Democratic Debate « WiredPen

YouTube Winner In Democratic Debate « WiredPen — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 08:53:13 +0000

[...] can complain about the TV production (like this) or go on about a clash of culture between “old” and “new” media. These [...]

By: Tim Hood

Tim Hood — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:24:35 +0000

In the UK, the TV company Sky uses voting buttons on the remote controller for viewers to participate in online polls. This would be an effective way to both involve people who don’t use the web regularly in the selection of questions and to offset the effects of gaming on the process.

I think a combination of first stage text questions, followed by second stage televised shortlists on video followed by a combination of telephone and web voting on the shortlist would be the most inclusive solution.

By: Shelby

Shelby — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:11:47 +0000

I talked to Anderson Cooper at the post-debate Google party (what an event *that* was, complete with sod brought in for a grassy parlor…and roaches), and asked him about the blogosphere’s dissatisfaction with the selection process. He said they had to keep control of it to prevent any candidates from gaming the system. He seemed to be referring to the Biden campaign’s “Then What” initiative, saying something along the lines of, “As we saw one candidate wanted to flood the system with his own question,” and went from there to the conclusion that even with authentically original questions, a candidate could pick favorites and ask their supporters to compulsively vote for particular questions. He did seem to concede that the next time around there might be some way to compromise between editorial control and average-Joe input. I might be able to post the video of said chit-chat by tomorrow.

By: Tim Hood

Tim Hood — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:04:21 +0000

I’m actually not sure the video format works that well-aren’t we getting a little obsessed with the medium? If we actually wanted the public to vote and choose the questions to be asked, then how likely would it be that many people would browse 3000+ 30 second clips? Questions in text form are far more browsable and the process of writing questions enables people to edit and hone. The winners of a crowd sourced interview competition could still be invited to ask the question live or record it. And for real dialogue, surely the questioners should get the chance to respond? Or may be they did and I missed it…
For an example of an alternative format, please see the limey site, http://www.yoosk.co.uk
We’ll soon have all the presidential candidates on the site and text questions are welcome, as are volunteers to somehow get a commitment to the candidates to answer them.

By: Steve Clancy

Steve Clancy — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 11:24:59 +0000

I had very little expectations for the debate, so my experience was different - I thought it went pretty well. I think the key here was that the questions tonight were better than anything Wolf Blitzer had last month. In that debate I got the sense he was using the forum to outsmart candidates and inflate his own ego. To Cooper’s credit he stayed a moderator throughout the debate and held the candidates to the specific questions the YouTubers posted - rather than let them duck it with a stump speech. I think the question about diplomacy, the question about women in the draft, the gay marraige question, and several others were all very strong and telling of where these candidates stood. Maybe it wasn’t as open and hip as something totally online would have been, but I think it was better than anything cable TV has come up with thus far.

By: KOffee

KOffee — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:56:07 +0000

@JD LAsica: I dont see how it changed the rule significantly. Can you explain? There were basic questions with same old answers. Question format did change but that’s the only thing. Where I am from (France) we had a similar debate with people asking candidate questions directly on TV: didnt change nothing…

By: KOffee

KOffee — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:53:00 +0000

Well i wasnt expecting much anyways. It would be hard to have a direct online debate though for it would be to messy thousands of people would ask question at the same time.

By: JD Lasica

JD Lasica — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 05:59:47 +0000

Jeff, I think some of your points are well taken, but on the whole, tonight was a refreshing exercise in political discourse and not the same old same old.

Perhaps because you had such a clear (and keen-eyed) vision of what you’d like to see in these national conversations, you perhaps aren’t giving enough recognition to the fact that this evening’s debate changed the rules of the game. Perhaps not profoundly. But surely significantly.

More here:
http://www.socialmedia.biz/2007/07/watching-the-cn.html