CNN/Google/YouTube Debate Is Not A Radical Departure From The Norm. Discuss.

The flight to Charleston, South Carolina being two hours delayed, this column will miss a private reporters' lunch featuring the two founders of YouTube. Later tonight, after the debate, Google will fete reporters after deadline at Charleston's Visitor Center Bus Terminal (which apparently is nicer than it sounds). Apparently, the event features live music from an artist with the last name of McCain.

This debate is supposed to be new and innovative and a radical departure from the norm. Maybe.

For one thing, giant corporate sponsors are plying reporters with food and drinks. That's the norm of the presidential debates. Since when do companies sponsor primary debates? Are we going to see a GOP debate sponsored by Bank of America?

The best way to contextualize today's debate is to see it as a joint production of two giant media conglomerates -- Google (YouTube), Time Warner (CNN) -- a slightly flashier variant, in other words, of the usual.

Ostensibly, the press is supposed to focus on the wonder of citizens submitting their own questions through YouTube. Some of the questions will be unique, and it's always a good thing to vary the voices involved in vetting the candidates.

The trouble is that the rate of technological progress advances so quickly, our expectations and beliefs about what's "new" and "innovative" revise themselves automatically, and YouTube is no longer "the latest" in campaign technology.

With some exceptions, the campaigns have mastered the art of using YouTube to saturate opposition research and few, if any, independent YouTube submissions have changed the course of the primaries since George Allen's Macaca video was broadly disseminated by the Webb campaign. Maybe it's too early, or maybe those who are paying attention today already suffer from YouTube Oversaturation Syndrome.

In any event, Google is a dominant and vertically integrating force in the media universe today. It plans to try and take over the lucrative but esoteric practice of media buying, just as it has revolutionized web-based advertising and marketing.

With the Democratic Party and CNN's assent, this debate is an attempt by Google stamp their brand on a technology they did not invent and an openness they are struggling to endorse. That's smart of them.

Sam Feist, the executive producer of CNN's Situation Room, and Robert Yoon, CNN's chief political researcher, are helping Anderson Cooper select and order the questions. So the same "corporate media" that comes in for criticism is serving as somewhat of a filter.

Comments

You state:

With some exceptions, the campaigns have mastered the art of using YouTube to saturate opposition research and few, if any, independent YouTube submissions have changed the course of the primaries since George Allen's Macaca video was broadly disseminated by the Webb campaign. Maybe it's too early, or maybe those who are paying attention today already suffer from YouTube Oversaturation Syndrome.

This comment seems a tad hasty. The George Allen Macaca video was only one year ago and there haven't been any hotly contested primaries since that time. The presidential race is just starting to heat up in terms of public awareness. And, indeed, just as it the race is beginning to become interesting out pops the Mitt Romney "Obama, Osama and Chelsea's Moma [sic]" poster, which is getting video notice especially through the BuckeyeStateBlog video.

Posted by rts | July 23, 2007 3:19 PM

I think it's very easy to feel oversaturated when you are in the eye of the hurricane. If you're a traveling campaign reporter, you've endured countless town hall style meetings. But for most people, town hall meetings are a novel experience, and town hall debates are one of the few times the Presidential candidates directly engage regular people. Likewise with youtube.

I would also point out that having the "corporate media" filter questions from regulars is more small-d democratic than having the corporate media come up with questions. If you look at the general election, the town hall debates are almost always more substantive and specific than the journalist moderated debates. Undecided voters actually seem to care about policy rather than gossip ... they may not have thought out all policy questions for months on end, but they would rather hear candidates talk about the minimum wage or Iraq than haircuts or flip-flopping or whatever the gossip controversy du jour is. It's frustrating that even CNN is denigrating its own product by searching for the handful of loonies who submitted odd questions.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 23, 2007 4:43 PM