- New RNC Download: A Fundraising Web Browser Toolbar
- Daily Digest: OffTheBus Causes Traditional Media Sleepless Nights
- Daily Digest: Novak Discovers They Let *Anyone* Read the Internets
- Daily Digest: Netrooters Pick Priorities for Selves, POTUS
- Daily Digest: The Evolutionary Tracks of the Left and Right
- Seeking Local Models for Twitter Coverage
- Does Bob Barr Twitter for Himself?
- You’ve Got a Friend in Barack Obama: Integrating Social Networking Tools into Political Campaigns
- Microtargeting Myth vs. Fact
- Daily Digest: The Bloggers at Night Are Big and Bright...
By Joshua Levy, 12/03/2007 - 10:52pm
Some quick thoughts about tonight’s MTV/MySpace presidential dialogue (gosh that’s a mouthful; we need an acronym).
The word on the street is that John McCain was a big hit. While I definitely noticed some bored stares and hair-twirling, the students I spoke to were genuinely impressed by McCain’s trademark straight talk and, I think, a little surprised that he came off so sincere.
It was ironic to find that actually being at the event felt less participatory. The audience couldn’t vote on whether McCain answered the question, and couldn’t register their agreement or disagreement, and there were little to no followup questions directed at McCain. Moderator and MTV VJ Gideon Yago said that he “didn’t want to grandstand,” implying that following up would be taking to much time away from McCain.
Shouldn’t the in-person dialogue — like a the old fashioned townhalls that inspire so many online forums — be more participatory than this?
Given the criticism of the the recent CNN/YouTube Republican debate, a lot of folks were trying to compare the two tonight. The CNN debate was criticized for not involving the public in the selection of questions; in this event, there really is no editorial gatekeeper. The producers know vaguely what the question topics will be beforehand based on surveys of the students attending, but the real answers come up on the spot. In that sense, I think this is a better format than the problematic CNN/YouTube model.
However, no one got the chance to press McCain. He said “ugh” when asked about immigration, but he does have real opinions about it that may or may not differentiate him from other candidates, and he should be pressed to answer the questions. Instead, we got what Micah Sifry called an infomercial about McCain.
To take away: format is generally good but we need more involvement, followup questions, and toughness from the audience.
Recent blog posts
Recent comments
- ....and it is about f*cking time!
10 hours 5 min ago - Unless your a donor.............
1 day 2 hours ago - Uh, duh!
1 day 2 hours ago - Anyone changing their minds
3 days 11 hours ago - wonderful article
6 days 8 hours ago - Innovative is relative
6 days 16 hours ago - Is it just me...
6 days 23 hours ago - Url of the viral video module for Paltalk
1 week 3 days ago - Thanks Dave-
It was a wild
1 week 4 days ago - What You Failed To Remark On...
1 week 5 days ago

print
email
delicious
digg
technorati
Was this an improvement?
I think it's great that MySpace and MTV are partnering on these dialogues, and they seem to genuinely be trying to marry the internet and TV. By including the live feedback loop with the pie-charts showing how viewers online are responding to what they're hearing the candidate say, they've definitely injected a new element into the conversation. (Though I'd like to see some way of checking who is voting, or at least how many people are voting overall, because this interactive element is obviously open to being gamed.)
That said, it really bothers me to see, yet again, the "town hall" format turned into something that is a far cry from a real town hall meeting. The young people sitting on the set around McCain looked mainly like props in, yes, an infomercial. Josh reported from inside the hall that the kids were told to behave themselves and not interrupt or otherwise signal their displeasure with anything the candidate might say.
Tell me how that format differs from a staged "people's democracy" meeting in pick-whatever-dictatorship-you-like. Where is the freedom of speech in such a setting? Are we supposed to cede all agency to the MTV hosts, who are themselves actors in a TV show, to perhaps offer context or push back on one of the candidate's answers?
I am tired of all the learned and exhibited deference to authority that pervades our culture. If we have learned anything from Iraq, it's that we have to think for ourselves and not defer to authorities just because they are our betters.
In theory, the culture of the internet is intrinsically more freewheeling and confrontational and democratic than anything we get from capital-intensive, capital-owned Big Media. But when we combine the two, we shouldn't trade a little more online interactivity with our would-be rulers for a lot less in-your-face interactivity.
Not to single out McCain, but in his case this would mean -- at a minimum -- someone asking this simple follow-up question when he states, with all the sincerity and passion that he is notably capable of, that he knows how to win in Iraq. How exactly, Senator? How many lives? How much blood? How much treasure?
In a real town hall, or even a two-bit democracy, we would have heard a follow-up question on that seminal point. God, it almost makes me wish Jim Lehrer had been asking all the questions. (Almost.)