CNN/Youtube Republican Debate Question: Abortion

We asked Alan Schroeder, Associate Professor of Journalism at Northeastern University, to respond to the overall phenomenon of the CNN-YouTube debates and the Ben Franklin students’ participation in submitting questions. Professor Schroeder is the author of “Presidential Debates: 40 years of High-Risk TV” and “Celebrity-in-Chief: How Show Business Took Over the White House.”

Generally speaking, these are good questions. I might make a couple of suggestions about the production of the videos: First, to the extent possible, I think it works better when questions are asked conversationally, and not read from scripts. Debates should be relaxed events, and just as the candidates must answer off the cuff, I think it’s a good idea for questioners not to seem overly prepared. Debates should not seem stilted — that applies to the candidates as well as the people asking questions.

Second, it seems to work well to edit “B-roll” visuals into your questions, as this second example has done. Debates are TV programs, and as such they need to keep the visual imperative of television in mind. You don’t want the creativity to get in the way of the substance, but interesting visuals add life to the questions.

Finally, in shooting these questions, make sure the microphone is as close to the questioner as possible. One of the failings of the debate last week in South Carolina was that the questions were not always easy to understand, which is a huge drawback.

What do you make of the “YouTube” debate question format?

The advantage of this format is that, at least in theory, it opens up the discussion to any subject by any interested party. When TV debates first began (Kennedy/Nixon in 1960), they featured questions only from journalists, but now we are seeing a greater trend toward citizen involvement. The YouTube format is the logical extension of previous format innovations such as the town hall meeting, which first appeared in the general election debates of 1992.

What do you think about an institute curriculum that focuses on asking questions of political candidates?

Political candidates must be held accountable, and that means direct engagement with citizens. As a curricular goal, I think it’s good that you are getting students in the habit of raising questions and demanding answers. Too often politicians ask us to take them on faith, and unfortunately that hasn’t always worked out.

Is it legitimate for international citizens to ask questions of political candidates in the United States? Is this an opening to begin stronger consideration of a “global public sphere”?

Certainly it is legitimate, since the U.S. is a key player–probably THE key player– on the international stage. At this point in our history, when the standing of the U.S. around the world has hit an all-time low, it is particularly important that Americans engage in dialogue with citizens of other countries. At the same time, since political debates are tied to specific elections, and non-citizens don’t vote in those elections, I don’t think international citizens should get their hopes up that U.S. politicians are clamoring to respond to their concerns.

The notion of a “global public sphere” is something that is likely to gain currency in the future, as the world becomes more wired and thus more interconnected.

What are the implications of the YouTube debates for citizen journalism?

Frankly, I don’t see much connection. The brevity of the YouTube questions means fairly superficial treatment of the issues. And debates are not really the same thing as journalism. If the first CNN/YouTube debate is any indication, the mainstream media will continue to lead the post-debate conversation, though certainly there’s a lot of commentary coming from bloggers, message boards, etc. The best-case scenario would be that interactive debates will inspire citizens to pursue further information on issues they would like to be educated about.