|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The New Debate Frontier Lowell Ponte Did our democratic republic experience a great evolutionary leap forward on Monday night? CNN mated with Internet video Web site YouTube to broadcast a Democratic Party presidential debate in which the questioners were not the usual reporters but a wide variety of Americans via pre-recorded statements. The result was remarkably good, surprising, and penetrating . . . an injection of vitality and freshness that reawakened already-bored viewers, the candidates themselves, and even CNN's droning narcoleptic Anderson Cooper, son of heiress Gloria Vanderbilt and descendent of the ultra-wealthy Vanderbilts of America's Gilded Age. To appreciate why these questions of ordinary people seemed better than those of journalists, we need to understand Washington, D.C., journalism. The prominent reporters and pundits you see every week giving political news and opinion have reached the highest, and highest paid, cushy jobs in journalism. These much-desired jobs are won and kept through a symbiosis of mutually beneficial relationships between journalists and politicians. Robert Novak lays out how this works in his new autobiography "The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years of Reporting in Washington." Story Continues Below
A reporter develops "sources" through friendships with political insiders and uses these, often year after year, to get exclusive information and scoops for stories. This can get very cozy, and there's the rub. Journalists are supposed to serve as public watchdogs, unearthing and making public politician inconsistencies, hypocrisies and corruption. But all too often, these watchdogs become fat and lazy lapdogs living off politician largesse. Washington journalists quickly learn that theirs is a world of carrots and sticks. If you write stories the politicians like, you will be rewarded with exclusive interviews and advance insider information that will make you look brilliant in the eyes of your audience and bosses. But if you write or say things that embarrass, anger, or annoy politicians, you will quickly find your access restricted. The goodies they previously gave you will suddenly stop. Even honest journalists therefore tread carefully. In a politician debate, for example, veteran reporters will occasionally singe but seldom burn an entrenched politician whose favor they might need a month or a year from now. Their questions — especially to Democrats, with whom most journalists feel a leftward ideological kinship — are almost never as pointed or lethally aimed as they could be. In a 1988 presidential debate, then CNN-anchor Bernard Shaw asked Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee, whether he favored the death penalty if someone murdered Dukakis' wife. The liberal governor's emotionless "progressive" response helped seal his defeat, for which his fellow liberal journalists for years thereafter blamed Shaw. Poor Bernie! He had tried to lob a fat, easy question across the middle of the plate so Dukakis could passionately hit a winning home run! The beauty of Monday night's YouTube debate was that ordinary citizens have no cozy relationships with politicians or fat-cat journalist jobs to protect. They are unafraid, and in fact delight, in asking questions that pin down or embarrass candidates. These civilian questioners on Monday were performing the watchdog job that too few Washington journalists do (except when attacking Republicans). It was, therefore, fun and eye-opening to watch. Eons ago, as a callow young reporter in Washington, D.C., I devised and promoted a plan to restore honest reporting to the capital. I called it the "office of access," through which young journalists from college newspapers and radio stations would work briefly in our center of government. Because these young journalists were not highly paid lapdogs, I reasoned, they would feel free to report honestly. I was too idealistic, I admit in retrospect, if only because the best of them would quickly be seduced by power or hired by one of the 60 liberal media outlets that nearly monopolized every shred of information the American people received. My little plan was widely, if quietly, praised by both liberal journalists and a Republican White House. It was, of course, never implemented, but it did open the door for me to many friendships across the political spectrum. Monday night's debate therefore evoked nostalgia in this journalist. It was imperfect, of course. Liberal CNN selected which tiny handful out of more than 3,000 submitted video questions were used. Only those few questioners invited to be in the audience got anything like a chance at a follow-up question. And Cooper usually put the best questions to only one or two candidates on stage, not to all of them. This easy-to-manipulate YouTube format could quickly lose its new shine. And if its questions become too effective, Democratic candidates will soon refuse to face citizen questioners — just as they refused to participate in debates hosted by Fox News Channel because it does not share the liberal tilt of CNN and MSNBC. Another innovation the news networks might consider is to have candidates from one party to answer questions posed by politically adept candidates of other parties. Rivals doubtless already flooded CNN with crafty questions disguised as the views of ordinary people — the latest example of fake partisan astroturf masquerading as genuine grass-roots views. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney last Sunday described New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's collectivist ideas as "out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx." Before you call this far-fetched, remember that Hillary as a young attorney interned for the Communist Party USA's lawyers, and that she has been a hard-line radical leftist. How many Americans know that since 1984 the Communist Party USA has ceased running presidential candidates of its own, directing its members instead to vote for the candidate of the Democratic Party? Has the Democratic Party moved so far to the left that even Communists find it acceptable? If so, how can any American opposed to Communism vote Democratic? Imagine a televised debate in which Sen. Clinton faced such questions from Gov. Romney. And Republican candidates faced equally illuminating tough questions from Democratic and Libertarian candidates. British democracy has something similar in its weekly televised parliamentary open questioning of its prime minister. For now I say "Two cheers for YouTube-ocracy!"
Editor's note: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |