The YouTube era becomes mainstream.

You know, I’ve been at a few of those goat rodeos called presidential debates back when I was press secretary of the Republican National Committee. My expectations were low regarding the YouTube experiment with CNN and Anderson Cooper.

I was hoping it was not dominated by a bunch of people who finished uploading a Jackass contest entry and threw on a question for the candidates. I thought CNN would do its usual headline grabber followed by the always handy “Most Trusted Name in News” or something like that. It is entertainment after all: plot, conflict, antagonist, protagonist, etc., etc., etc.

But no. Anderson Cooper and the producers earned a good deal of praise. The questions did, for the most part, seem to represent a cross section of the country’s most pressing concerns. It did indeed seem like we were talking in America’s living room. Congrats to Senior Vice President David Bohrman and CNN Political Director Sam Feist — not to mention YouTube — for giving a voice to individual.

Of course, some of those individuals are political types, playing the game, working the system. So be it. It’s a free country. Expect it and live with it.

The way this format works — if the American people want honest answers — is to reward those answers. For example, when Joe Biden keeps hammering on the fact that you can’t physically get the troops out of Iraq for a year, and gets others to reluctantly concede that fact, then Biden’s numbers need to move in a positive direction.

For the public’s role, they need to appreciate that an honest answer is likely one with which they might not agree. And the manner in which we reach these conclusions needs to be one of mutual respect and civility. Only then will candidates and the political machine take notice and change. If not, then this format runs the risk if further trivializing the election cycle circus.

A couple of questions were, well, questionable. For example, reparations for descendants of slaves. I thought, “Where did this come from?” There are plenty of other significant ways to get to the issue of race: police brutality, predatory lending practices, and so on. But reparations? Maybe the question-selection team wanted to get questions that would allow for a clear split among the candidates instead of the lip service usually applied to those issues.

CNN needs to be careful on questions like the snowman talking about global warming and the gun toter. Stick to the substance; we can handle it. The format is engaging enough without dramatizing the questions, too.

Other questions were priceless, like the gay marriage question asked by the two women from New York. Great timing gals. The best question of the bunch was the one that attempted to separate BS from real deal on the issue of “working together,” the current politically tested phrase that means nothing. The question went something like this: If you are so good at working with Republicans, which one would you pick as a running mate if you could only pick a Republican? Nice answer from Biden on that one.

I hope the format underscored that we are all Americans, and it’s not about Democrats and Republicans. Statistically, one side can’t be wrong all the time and visa versa.

The media tries to play that “you’re wrong, I’m right” game, as well. Anderson tried to get Edwards to say yes or no about whether he is better on women’s issues than Hillary. To Edwards’ credit, he did not take the bait. Why? Because that’s the bait that leads to unnecessary, mindless conflict. It might be good for TV in the old model — the “Hey, fight in the schoolyard!” sort of dribble — but the country needs more substance.

Perhaps this format will teach the media that lesson.

Image courtesy of CNN.com.

Share on StumbleUpon