« Googling: A Synonym For 'Stalking' | Main | In The Blog's-Eye: The 'Clinton News Network' »

Save The Debate, Ditch CNN

Earlier this summer, a group of Republican bloggers spearheaded an effort to convince their party's presidential candidates to participate in a debate hosted by CNN and YouTube. After having watched the debate last night, the Save the Debate Coalition has changed its tune somewhat.

The bloggers -- David All, Robert Bluey, Soren Dayton and Patrick Ruffini -- still believe in the democratic nature of the medium YouTube has built and believe the candidates should embrace it. But they no longer think CNN can be trusted as a partner in the debates.

Here's an excerpt from a statement the group issued today:

A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN's selection bias. We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.

The directors of RedState went even further, calling for firings at CNN and for a GOP boycott of all future debates hosted by the network.

Mary Katharine Ham echoed that sentiment at Townhall.com but also emphasized that the problem was CNN's implementation, not the technology it only half-heartedly embraced.

"When you’re doing user-generated questions," she wrote, "there’s always a possibility that motives will be suspect and operatives involved, but it’s incumbent upon news organizations to do the not-very-hard work of Googling people to prevent it."

The controversy and call for a boycott is reminiscent of one earlier this year involving Demcratic bloggers and Fox News, CNN's leading rival. In that case, pressure from the bloggers prompted the Democratic presidential candidates to withdraw from a debate hosted by Fox because of allegations of bias.

There is a nonpartisan twist to the CNN story, though. Even the liberal Think Progress is bashing the network for its handling of the debates it has hosted this year.

"While many in the media credited the network with bringing 'originality and spontaneity' to the debate process by partnering with YouTube," Think Progress concluded, "its debates have more often been characterized by sloppy preparation, a lack of transparency, and theatrics that undermine the intelligence of the American public."

UPDATE: Get more information at Bluey Blog.

UPDATE II: On the same day that CNN has been under relentless fire for its handling of a new debate format, ABC News announced that it will join the Internet politics game by partnering with the online social network Facebook to host a series of debates in January before the New Hampshire primary.

UPDATE III: Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz also covered the CNN debate controversy.

Posted by Danny | 08:40 AM

Comments

Since a GOP primary is supposed to be for REPUBLICANS to choose OUR nominee, why SHOULDN’T it be partisan? By which I mean, questions asked by REPUBLICANS, with answers FOR Republicans, instead planted liberals hand-picked by clueless CNN staffers.

I say the 8 candidates should appear on a live 3 hour radio debate during the Rush Limbaugh program. CNN had 5 million viewers, and most were democrats. Rush gets 20 million listeners, and most are REPUBLICANS. And Rush will ask questions WE want answered instead of trolling for democrat talking points.

Confederate flags? Gays in the military? ... Putting pregnant women in prison for seeking abortion? What Republicans are talking about these issues?

Call/write/e-mail Rush and suggest he volunteer his show for the next debate.

Gullyborg | 11.30.07 02:13 PM

RedState and others aren't exactly known for their support for a healthy debate, so let me suggest two ways to deal with this issue that are not as susceptible to partisan manipulation.

1. If someone wants to have a Youtube-style debate, they can select the questions using the technique described here. I've even mostly finished programming that, but I didn't complete it in time for the last "debate". With that technique, known quantities would vote on the toughness of the videos, and every individual vote would be public. Thus, someone who votes down a tough video - or vice versa - would face a loss to their reputation.

2. A far better debate format is described here. That would replace biased anchors who aren't policy experts with those who are familiar with the details of an issue and who can point out when the candidate is lying.

Expect either plan to be resisted by the MSM - who'd be shown up - and by partisans - who are afraid of the effect that tough questioning would have on their side.

TLB | 11.30.07 02:22 PM

The words used to ask a question leads the answer. The staffers at CNN should be ashamed of themselves.

tyree | 11.30.07 02:43 PM

Article reads a tad unclearly. You cannot fairly equivocate between CNN's Republican debate, which in fact took place and was attended by all Republican candidates, and Fox's Democrat debate, which was cancelled upon the shrill outcry from the Democratic roots movement.

Whereas the CNN debate did contain proven biased and/or stunningly unprofessional moderation by the network's representatives, the so-called "allegations of bias" in the Fox debate were happy horse-pucky, given that the debate never happened, and even if it had it was co-sponsored by the NAACP!

The two are simply not comparable, other than to point out the Democrats' apparent lack of "gravitas", to borrow an old favorite term, in shying away from the Fox network.

vincenzo | 11.30.07 04:14 PM

I liked Gullyborg's idea. Get Rush to host the debate on his show.

I sent him an email asking him to consider it.

TimM | 11.30.07 04:58 PM

My idea for picking the questions: The candidates' staffs pick one question for each of the other candiates. This gives up a potential of 56 questions, which would then be queued up randomly and questions would go round-robin until time runs out.

submandave | 12.03.07 12:58 PM

Post a Comment