YouTube debate: revolution or convolution?
Yesterday CNN hosted its much-hyped YouTube presidential debate with the Democratic candidates. Rather than a traditional moderator, all the questions posed were submitted via YouTube by “average joes” (and a snowman). I guess this was the Internet’s big chance to make good on that whole “democratizing effect” promise we’ve been hearing about for the past ten years or so. Of course, the questions were still screened and selected by CNN, which explains the notable absence of YouTube’s regular fare (crazy Japanese prank shows, people ghostriding the whip and teenagers going out of their minds on salvia).
As for the content, it seemed marginally more interesting than a regular debate; there was at least the potential to put the candidates in the hot seat, such as when a lesbian couple inquired as to why they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. If nothing else, it was a step in the right direction, although Politico found it highly ironic that the debate itself failed to produce a “YouTube moment.” Also not impressed were the folks over at Wonkette, who live-blogged the whole thing (read: sat at their computers and got drunk as the debate unfolded).
I watched it. Then I had this crazy feeling that i just wanted to buy some ice cream.
That’s…about it.