I liked the debate a lot. I think that having the public submit questions allowed CNN to pose questions to the candidates that they might have been too chicken to pose. It gave them some cover. The YouTubers were way more interesting than having the usual talking heads.
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Watkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didnt see it, Im in the UK, but I just read this story about it > which I felt covered a lot of ground: > > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070724/youtube_debate_070724/20070724?hub=World > > or > > http://tinyurl.com/299ukk > > Personally I feel that the flaw that theres still a gatekeeper, CNN, > was less relevant than the fact the politicians are still the same. It > may be different people asking the questions, but politicians are > still going to use their training to answer the questions in the way > they want, encompassing their talking points and well-practices > political stances on the issues raised, or even unrelated issues. > > But its a start. Here in the UK we have a TV program called Question > Time, where the comments and questions from the audience are often a > lot more interesting than what the panel says. > > The ability to create a new version of public meetings, using the > internet, is certainly of interest. This CNN thing wasnt that, but it > was some sort of step in the right direction I guess. A big challenge > will be to change the pace of these things, theres only so much > reality you can get out of short soundbites and quickly moving on to > the next question, I remain fascinated by whether peoples > concentration spans have been really been reduced over the decades or > whether there is a real appetite for longer and deeper discussions. > > Cheers > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Gena" <compumavengal@> wrote: > > > > I didn't get a chance to see it, I don't have cable but one of the > > things I thought odd was that CNN got to choose/filter the videos > > before airing. > > > > Now I'm not necessarily saying that is or is not a bad thing. If CNN > > is footing the bill and you want to set a certain tone for the type of > > questions that you get it might be reasonable to have this filter. > > > > But it is still a filter/control from an established media company. > > It is still directed "from up high" and a select few are allowed to > > ask questions. > > > > On the one hand there is a M$M disrespect of user generated content > > unless and until it can be used as a marketing tool or as a way to > > look cool. > > > > Next you lock down the contributions from one web video host and then > > you further filter who can access by having it on cable, if your > > provider carries CNN, CSPAN or CSPAN2. > > > > Concept-wise, this is not a bad start. I'm just impatient for the next > > evolution. > > > > Gena > > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Heath" <heathparks@> wrote: > > > > > > I thought I would take a break from Podtech talk for a minute and ask > > > this. did anyone see the CNN/YouTube debate last night? I caught > some > > > of it and I had to say, I thought it was good. I thought most of the > > > questions were good and I thought Cooper did a good job of making > sure > > > the canidates answered the questions. > > > > > > Maybe we are really finally reaching a tipping point....where > canidates > > > will realize that we as a country don't care about democrats or > > > republicans, we want solutions and for our elected officails to start > > > working together to address the very real issues that affect us all... > > > > > > Heath > > > http://batmangeek.com > > > > > >
