YouTube Takes over Democratic Debate

YouTube is great.

It's a conversation starter, an outlet for bored people across the World who don't want to blog, a democratic movie production studio.

Yet, has its reach extended too far, too fast?

An article on The New York Times website this afternoon described how YouTube will be integrated into the July 23 democratic presidential debate in South Carolina. "New Presidential Debate Site? Clearly YouTube," said that the debate, which will be broadcasted on CNN with Anderson Cooper at the helm, will allow viewers to ask questions via YouTube.

Author of the article Katherine Q. Seelye writes:

Now imagine a kid in jeans and a T-shirt asking a question, less reverentially, more pointedly and using powerful visual images to underscore the point. Maybe he or she will ask about the war in Iraq — and show clips from a soldier’s funeral. Or a mushroom cloud. If global warming is the issue, the videographer might photoshop himself or herself onto a melting glacier. The question might come in the form of a rap song or through spliced images of a candidate’s contradictory statements.

When I first glanced at the article, I probably had the same reaction as many--I have a chance to ask a question at a presidential debate! Where can I get video equipment!

Yet, when I thought about it more, I realized that I'm not thrilled at all with the YouTube takeover. I think it is a bad idea. This is a presidential debate we're talking about, and it is being turned into American Idol.

Ever since I was little, I've loved watching presidential debates. When I was young, it was to laugh at the goofy ears of Ross Perot. Now that I'm old enough to vote, the debates are a prime outlet for me to zero in on the candidates. Even though so much is rehearsed, over the course of a two hour debate, much can be drawn out of the candidates.

The best part about these debates is that all attention is put on the candidates. There are no intermediates to interpret what is being said--I can tune into CNN later for that if I want. While the debate is ongoing, I have to draw all conclusions on my own without any analysts help. I get to have a dialogue with the candidates, and no one can interfere with it. The information is coming straight from the candidates mouth into my TV room.

The YouTubing of the debate is inappropriately shifting the focus from the debaters to the viewers. I'll no longer be able to have an unbiased conversation with the candidates; I'll have to watch some graphic-filled video with a clear slant to it.

While watching debates, I often think debate moderators can do a better job of phrasing questions and giving all the candidates a fair say. However, I suspect that I will be yearning for the moderators of yesteryear when watching the YouTubed debate.

I suppose the only positive to come out of this is that more people will watch. Many people who would have otherwise watched American Inventor or America's Got Talent, will watch the debate. Essentially, the debate is being turned into the shows they love to watch--the viewer is getting an equal part to the performers. This YouTube debate will certainly be more exciting than those of the past.

However, when it comes to presidential debates, the barrier between viewer and performer should stay. Debates aren't supposed to be all that exciting. Let the YouTube videos remain on-line, where people have to search to find them, and don't force them upon viewers of a national debate.

The viewers have always had a chance to play a part in the election process--it comes on Election Day.