YouTube, MTV and MySpace blur line between entertainment and politics
By Taryn Lentes, Staff Writer
January 3, 2008 | 3:51 a.m.
The presidential election debate season is already well underway. This time around, traditionally formatted forums face competition from a new entertainment-fueled breed of debate. Do debates sponsored by MySpace, MTV and YouTube help or hinder the democratic process?
Debates among candidates for political office are often considered by many to be both boring and lacking in real substance. Candidates are thoroughly prepped on likely questions, and deliver mostly scripted responses that above all remain consistent with the message they are attempting to project. Many times the original question is never answered as those debating branch off into unrelated subjects or respond to an accusation made during a previous question, resulting in a complete disregard of the time limits assigned for their answer. The process can be frustrating to watch, and very rarely is any real information made available to the public regarding the specific policies and plans of the candidates.
To many, it is clear that major reform to the debate process is needed, but one trendy effort to do so has arrived with controversy of its own. In an attempt to increase public participation while simultaneously upping the entertainment value, first YouTube and now MySpace and MTV have introduced their own brand of presidential debates. While some have praised these debates for leveling the playing field and holding candidates responsible for actually answering questions, others have accused them of mocking the political process and striving only for viewers rather than informed discussions.
The first entertainment brand of debate was the YouTube-sponsored debate for Democratic presidential candidates. YouTube partnered with CNN for the debate, which was moderated by Anderson Cooper and featured all video questions submitted by YouTube members. The videos and questions contained in them ranged from serious questions asked by normal people speaking directly to a camcorder to half-joking queries posed by snowmen or set to music. The Republican YouTube debate also made use of this format, though fewer of the more creative clips were featured.
The commercials and promotions for these debates put a lot of emphasis on the fact that they were the first of their kind and described them as a groundbreaking step in the evolution of the debate. While this description may have been overstating both the debate’s importance and innovation, to a certain extent, this statement was true. It proved much more difficult for the candidates to sidestep the questions when they were posed by real people, aka the voters themselves. Often those who posed the questions on YouTube were actually present in the audience and allowed to critique the candidates’ responses, adding another layer of pressure to answer in a direct fashion.
While YouTube and CNN partnered to change how the candidates receive questions in a classic debate format, MySpace and MTV came together to sponsor "Presidential Dialogues" that were aired simultaneously on MTV and online at a special MySpace page. These dialogues featured a spotlight on one candidate who was asked questions by college students in person and anyone via instant messaging on the MySpace page. Statistical feedback to the candidate’s responses were gathered in real time via the MySpace page and delivered back to the candidate and the audience.
Even more so than the YouTube debates, this format increases the accountability candidates are faced with when delivering their answers. However, because their program is a dialogue rather than a debate, MySpace and MTV are offering a chance to hear what a specific candidate has to say without interruptions from other candidates or time limits. The first two dialogues featured Democrat candidates, John Edwards and Barack Obama, and the third featured Republican candidate John McCain.
These debates and dialogues have received mostly favorable reviews, and have forced the candidates to adjust their idea of what is necessary to win over voters, and this transition has not been easy for some. During the first YouTube debate, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden referred to several questions as “silly.” He did not appear to be the only one who felt that way. When YouTube and CNN began to plan for the follow-up Republican debate, they encountered resistance and excuses. Perhaps wary of the new format, or impatient with the humor infused in many of the questions, most of the republican candidates pulled out, blaming scheduling conflicts.
However, after receiving pressure from voters groups on both sides of the aisle and repeated offers from CNN to reschedule, all of the candidates invited did eventually agree to appear. The Myspace/MTV dialogues were not immune from this uneasiness either, especially during the John McCain dialogue. McCain grew repeatedly impatient with the interruptions caused by the statistics being offered up about the approval rating his responses were generating.
In a certain sense, the candidates’ frustration can be seen as justified. Is it really in the public’s best interest if a system is created where a candidate can gauge the reaction to each response and adjust it accordingly? However, the fact remains that in a country where voting participation is notoriously low, an increase in public participation in the political process is a positive step.
---
For more information visit: