Anyone watch the Democrats debate last night? No? It's okay, neither did most Americans.
Regardless of the fresh/new/modern approach to debate courtesy of CNN and YouTube, it really wasn't all that much better than, well, any other televised debate. In fact, I found it even more frustrating at times.
Still, it did provide an entertaining, odd and somewhat disturbing look into the state of modern American politics and the Democratic party. I wasn't quite as freaked out as my brother (who is convinced that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ), but it was a bit frightening that the substance of true political debate could be trumped by questions like "Who was your favorite teacher and why?" You've got to be kidding me.
I'll let you make your own judgment...
What YouTube doesn't change (Guardian Unlimited) Last night's YouTube-sponsored Democratic presidential debate just took an old question-and-answer format and made it much, much worse.
----------
And This Round Goes To... (Washington Post Online) CHARLESTON, S.C.--Monday's CNN/YouTube debate in Charleston was the best of the campaign season
----------
Debate over whether YouTube made a difference (Reuters) The latest presidential debate format, which debuted with video questions uploaded to YouTube, was widely applauded on Tuesday for spontaneity and for forcing candidates to be more flexible.
----------
Dems Debate Questions From Cyberspace (Forbes, NY) How big a change did CNN give viewers? More than a stunt and less than a revolution, this first YouTube debate was more impressive for some of the questions it raised than the answers it delivered. One reason: Too many candidates, too little time, and a format that discouraged followup questions or actual debating. Those are problems YouTube can't fix.
----------
Anyone watch the Democrats debate last night? No? It's okay, neither did most Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment