Some of the Republican candidates for president are having second thoughts about their participation in the scheduled September 17th CNN/YouTube debate and with good reason. If the first of these so-called excercises in democracy is any indication, the Republicans may be walking into a setup.

At the Citadel on July 23 the Democrats were handed their questions on a silver platter, served up like softballs.  You knew how the Democrats would respond even before the question ended: ”Do you believe the response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina would have been different if the storm hit an affluent, predominantly white city?,” “How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?,” “What would you, as President, do to make low-cost or free preventative medicine available for everybody in this country?” Did Howard Dean provide the questions for this new age of political videographers?

The Media Research Center points out that of the 39 questions CNN used of the more than 3,000 submitted via YouTube, 17 were liberal and 6 were conservative. Their question by question breakdown, including an analysis of where each question came at what point during the debate, is informative.

Andrew Keen is the author of The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture (2007, Doubleday). His book came out well before CNN and YouTube decided to collaborate on the debates. In it he prophesies:

The YouTubification of the political process is a threat to civic culture. It infantilizes the political process, silencing public discourse and leaving the future of the government up to thirty-second video clips shot by camcorder wielding amateurs with political agendas.

Many conservatives, especially those of us who use the New Media to disseminate facts into the marketplace of ideas against the main stream media’s stranglehold on that market, concluded that Andrew was merely defending the status quo. Having read his book, and now after speaking personally with him three times, it’s not the status quo Andrew is defending so much as it is accuracy, reason, fairness, and decorum in the new public square that is the blogosphere.

I agree with Andrew that what is lacking in the blogosphere is accountablity and verification of facts. Where I disagree with Andrew is on the notion that the main stream media - because it has the trained, professional journalists - is the best arbiter of what news and commentary is fit for public consumption. Andrew told me,

What I liked about it was that CNN was still in control, that you had editors at CNN selecting the videos. I think it would have been really chaotic and anarchic if there hadn’t been that editorial control. I think Anderson Cooper is very good. He maintained a relatively strict editorial control of the debate. Without Anderson Cooper it would have degenerated into chaos.

CNN had the trained, professionals in this case choosing 39 videos out of 3,000 and the slant was 3 to 1 in favor of liberal ideaology. Those same editors chose a video featuring an animated snowman asking a serious question you couldn’t take seriously, and another video recorded by a woman in her bathroom. Is this not indicative of the fact that even the so-called trusted professionals can’t be trusted with what is and is not acceptable for a debate forum? Andrew Keen:

The CNN people have fallen under the cult of the amateur. They’ve been seduced by this idea that the sillier the content the more authentic it is. I’m sure the CNN people realize that that’s just as inane as we do. But there’s this sort of leveling of political discourse in this country which means that they chose questions which, I think, were particularly silly and inane. It reflects a dumbing down of our political culture. What was missing to me was serious policy questions by people who are able to articulate themselves, people on the level of the politicians. I thought a lot of the questions were really poorly expressed, were too personalized, were too emotional. I don’t want to see questions with people pulling off wigs or people with dying parents. This turns politics into Reality TV.

I asked Andrew if he thought the editorial control of CNN showed a left leaning bias:

I think alot of the questions were rather silly. But I actually would turn it on its head. I don’t think questions about gay marriage help any Democratic candidate because they’re not vote winners. You can only lose votes from those sorts of questions. You know, “how black you are,” or “how white you are,” or “how Jewish you are,” or “how female you are,” those are questions that can only embarass candidates. So I’m not sure if it reflects a Left bias at CNN. I think it reflects a bias, perhaps, toward trivia or sensationist questions..

The biggest problem I had with it was twofold: Firstly, I thought there were many too many questions. None of the questions were properly answered. I was struggling with the fact that some of the more interesting questions weren’t even answered by half of the candidates. I don’t understand how that works. And secondly, I think a lot of the questions were rather trite. I wish that the candidates had gotten into more substantive policy issues. The challenge in this medium is I don’t want to elect a president who is a reflection of us, where we are looking for these candidates who are ordinary, who work for minimum wage, who cry when we cry. When it comes to being president we need an extraordinary person, not an ordinary person.

The majority of the questions CNN chose for response from the Democratic presidential candidates clearly played to the issues of importance to their base constituency. I surmised with Andrew Keen that the Republican candidates come September 17th would not be so fortunate. Andrew Keen,

I think you may be right. The hard question to ask Democrats in this is, it’s all very well getting out of Iraq, but what happens when we get out, you know, when hundreds of thousands of people are slaughtered, and that question came up and I don’t think any of the Democrats answered it very coherently because none of them have coherent answers to it, except perhaps Biden, who came out of that quite well.

I think the problem with this YouTubification of politics is it tends to trivialize everything, it tends to make everything into entertainment. What struck me most about the CNN/YouTube debate is I think in many respects America is in deep crisis. And I think there is a kind of denial about that crisis. There’s a crisis certainly in foreign policy and identity, to some extent in morality, and a crisis in media itself. And when you watched that event last night it did appear sort of like a political version of American Idol, just kind of silly entertainment, with silly questions and politicians doing their best to maintain their integrity. I don’t think this YouTubifiication of politics improves our political culture. I don’t think it makes politicians look very responsible or adult. The same will happen with the Republicans when they do the thing in September.