Kevin Marsh, editor of the BBC College of Journalism, thinks the YouTube debate the Democrats held in conjunction with CNN did little to truly put the candidates on the spot, compared to a traditional 'big media' debate format.
To fuse ‘big’ and ‘citizen’ media, CNN came up with a simple proposition. It invited voters to submit their questions for the presidential candidates via YouTube.
The network then selected questions, flew some of the questioners to be at the debate in person and in a two-hour show, anchor Anderson Cooper linked their questions to the candidates – last night it was the Democrat candidates, on 17 September it will be the Republican candidates. There was also the battle of the videos … on the ‘anything you can do’ principle’, live blogging on site after site. CNN even offered viewers the chance to be their own analysts.
Citizen media’s advocates, like Jeff Jarvis, had high hopes:
“The YouTube debates could fundamentally change the dynamics of politics in America, giving a voice to the people, letting us be heard by the powerful and the public, enabling us to coalesce around our interests and needs, and even teaching reporters who are supposed to ask questions in our stead how they should really do it.”
Too high. In the event, nothing new was revealed and a snowman was the star. No candidate was especially tested – indeed, they all seemed to find their key task (don’t get out, don’t give hostages to fortune) substantially easier than with a format such as ‘Meet the Press’ … or even the traditional anchor interview. As far as I could tell, the dynamics remained unchanged.
Contrast Jeff Jarvis’s disappointment after the event with his hopes before it – he and others blamed the format, blamed the anchor … even blamed the system for producing too many candidates.
He misses the point. ‘Big media’s’ monopoly of communication in the democratic process is over. Good. But hopes for ‘citizen media’ need to be realistic; as does any assessment of the enduring merits of ‘big media’ … like its ability to pose and press the really tough questions; like its persistence in coming back to the unanswered questions; like its ability to field ego against ego, personality against personality … not the most attractive aspect of ‘big media’, but its most necessary given the politics that we have.
Maybe there is a way of fusing ‘big’ and ‘citizen’, ‘old’ and ‘new’, but this wasn’t it.
If you can choke your way through a big-media elitist's analysis of the actual debate performances, may I point you to the effort by Time's Mark Halperin.
And here's the more populist effort by CNN's I-reporters.