In the Spotlight

Powered by
Movable Type 4.1
Copyright 2007, The Global Interdependence Initiative, a Project of the Aspen Institute
The opinions on this website represent those of the author alone. They are not the opinions, nor are they endorsed by, the Global Interdependence Initiative or the Aspen Institute.

« An Elephant Enters the Room | Main | China's Piece of the Pie »

YouTube Debate Watch

Time was that it was possible to do something creative, exciting and revolutionary on the American airwaves. The first televised presidential debates were 47 years ago, and that was groundbreaking. John F. Kennedy debated Richard Nixon in 1960 and single-handedly created the Kennedy mystique as a visual product, obliterating Nixon in the process. (Though Nixon got his revenge.) Nobody knew what to expect in 1960. Americans were on the edge of their seats.

Four years later, Americans were mourning Kennedy and turned to something earth-shattering from television once again. The Beatles came to the states and everyone stayed home to watch their debut on the Ed Sullivan Show. Fine. Not everyone, but close to 40% of the U.S. population stayed home to watch.

We don't get much groundbreaking material on the television these days. I guess that's why I'm not surprised to see mostly disappointment from young observers who had witnessed the hype and found last night's YouTube/CNN Democratic Candidates debate lacking.

The question I have is "What did you expect?"

I don't mean to be testy, but let me put everyone at ease: Almost nothing unpredictable, ground-breaking, even edgy or surprising will ever be associated with this presidential campaign. Don't look for the revolutionary embrace of new media. (Cokie Roberts on NPR kept referring to it as "the new media" like "the new math.") New media is a wonderful tool, but it's just one tool and it's not for everyone. CNN's fumbled use of the technology, the fact that web videos are small to begin with and small things don't look good on TV, and the natural political instinct of any candidate to use a question as an opportunity to do anything but answer the question basically guarantee that this exercise wouldn't be revolutionary.

America's voters are certainly not the YouTube generation. In the 2004 election, the lowest rate of registration was people aged 18-24. The lowest turnout rate? 18-24 again. Who picks our leaders? That would be the 70% of folks 45 and older who turn out to vote. I won't lament that this wasn't a revolutionary piece of television or part of the presidential campaign. I'm not naive enough to think that would be the case. But I will lament that ham-fisted exercises like this one won't do anything to bring voter turnout up in the targeted age groups. In fact, it might drive people away.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gii-exchange.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/294

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)