Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 08:49:53 -0000

What is it about the primaries you do not understand? Primaries are party processes not general ones. If CNN had put upjust ONE question from a Republican activist, employee, campaign official/volunteer then you may be able to call what happened as "fair".

What part of deliberate misrepresentations do you not understand. Kerr identified himself to CNN as an "undecided Republican" when in fact he was a "techincal independent" who A) served on the campaign of Hillary Clinton in an advisory capacity B)officially endorsed Clinton personally and officially through VoteVets C)raised soft money for Clinton via VoteVets.

CNN via Anderson Cooper even ADMITTED that Kerr's involvement as a committee member for Clinton was misrepresented and wrong, so much so that they edited out his comment. They did this because they were caught red-handed live on air by Bill Bennett. They even edited out his comments in later re-broadcasts.

This would have gone a long way to make things right had some very key things not happened, like:

1. A simple google search would have revealed Kerr's position on the first page of results, apparently CNN wasted over $300,000 on Kerr and no one bothered to vet his claims? They state that they didn't know who he was beyond his status as Gen., YET, he's been on the network before. He was DEFINATELY not an appropriate questioner, and he certainly should not have been given more air-time than 2 of the candidates. Discovering Kerr's relationship took even less time than he had on mike in the debate. That's simply inappropriate in a major way when you're supposedly trying to guarantee "a debate of their (key word there) party".

2. If some of the other questioners hadn't had directly contradictory commentary on their own YouTube pages, CNN might have been able to state that they didn't realize what they were doing.

3. If the numerical scope of inappropriate questioners was less, one might even begin to chalk it up to "fair" but as it stands over 30% of the questioners were Democrat activists, employees, campaign officials or declared supporters and volunteers/fundraisers. It should be noted that the number of Republican activists, employees, campaign officials and declared supporters/volunteers in the Dem CNN debate was precisely ZERO.

This was a primary debate. Not a general debate. The only way it could be called "fair" is if there were any similarities in the nature of the questions and questioners in the Dem debater was similar it was not.

Oh yeah, there was one similarity. In the CNN dem debate, they also misrepresented questioners as "undecided Democrats" who were actually activists with declared endorsements and officials from Democrat organizations who were officially supporting a Dem candidate, they also gave false names for a least one of the questioners which made discovery of her link to a campaign a bit more difficult but not impossible.

So yeah, CNN did make some attempt at fairness by including activists/employees/campaign officials and volunteers with declared support. Only problem is that they did this with Dem supporters questioning Dems in one debate and Dem supporters questioning Republicans in another.

You can say things like "appears to be" and "seems" but the facts are easy to see. CNN even admitted their error and scrubbed parts of the debate, yet people here are still claiming that Kerr was a legitimate questioner.

I will state flat out that some of you are simply being intellectually dishonest with your claims of "fairness" and I suggest you are doing so because of partisan means.

Is there ANYONE here who can, with a straight face say that if Karl Rove's wife (without identifying her as such) asked Clinton questions at the debate that they would consider that "fair"? Is there anyone here that would suggest that if an NRA official and campaign official (without disclosure of either) for Romney asked Obama about gun control that you would consider it fair?

Primaries are for the parties, the General is for populace at large.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Neil H — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 02:57:47 -0000

So I checked out Jas' hotair link, including going to the original source, and I see nothing about screening questioners. I do see something about screening *questions*, but that's not the same thing at all.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nyti...

'"There are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas,' and we are weeding those out." CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesdayâ€™s Republican event is â€œa debate of their party.â€ '

That's what hotair.com quoted. But apparently they missed the bit just above it:
"many of the remaining posts involve asking the candidates to defend their opposition to gay marriage and abortion. Those kinds of â€œlobbying grenadesâ€ would be disqualified by the CNN selection team, Mr. Bohrman said."

Their entire vetting process appeared to be about vetting the questions themselves, without regard to the identity of the questions. I think that's entirely fair.

I see nothing here about promising to disqualify questions from Democrat supporters, or from people who might be thinking about voting Democrat, or from a person who might have had expressed a positive opinion about a Democrat sometime last year, or however Mark is defining the phrase "Democratic plant" to mean. There is no evidence that CNN was going to disqualify questions based on party affiliation if they believed that the question was a fair one to ask of a Republican candidate.

So I believe Margalis is right, and Jas is wrong.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

stuartnoggle — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 15:04:34 -0000

I'm a Republican. I support Huckabee. I knew the questions were from Democrats, but I enjoyed seeing the Republican's squirm. I thought Huckabee did a great job answering the tough questions. The future President is going to having to deal with people on both sides. I like to see how the candidates respond to the "other side." Although CNN messed up, it all worked out for good. Republicans need to start addressing all questions (even if they are raised by die-hard Democrats).

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

brooklyn — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 11:59:45 -0000

Jim,

What planet are you on that you still care that Clinton was impeached? The lies that Bush & Co. have told the American public far outweigh anything Bill ever did or will do. At least he is not a murderer and a war criminal.

You want it straight? Kucinich or Paul.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Nick — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 07:45:00 -0000

Right on, Don. As a test of the Democrats sincerity, please answer the very simple question: What if it was a Democrat primary debate on Fox News and 30% of the questions came from Republican campaigners, supporters and employees, would you defend Fox News or not?

A very simple question.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Desspec — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 03:06:56 -0000

Earlier you called a guy illiterate. Now you're calling Margalis functionally illiterate. Dude, I don't think those terms mean what you think they mean. Either that, or you're a master of irony.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Desspec — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 02:31:34 -0000

"I can't believe that I have to spell it out so explicitly for some of you."

Mark, you can't seem to believe.. are baffled by.. are truly sorry people can't accept the truth.. don't know where people get their information.. etc.

We get it, man. People who disagree with you are stupid and you are continually amazed by it.

Done and done.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:14:57 -0000

You must not have looked around HotAir all that much.

http://hotair.com/archives/...

â€œThere are quite a few things you might describe as Democratic â€˜gotchas,â€™ and we are weeding those out,â€ Mr. Bohrman said. CNN wants to ensure that next Wednesdayâ€™s Republican event is â€œa debate of their party.â€â€¦

We can play this game forever, the facts are solidly on my side.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Chris Stevens — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:12:46 -0000

Most Startling Admission in the CNN YouTube Presidential Debates

30 seconds says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Don — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:43:56 -0000

Great article Mark.

Imagine if the tables were turned - if was a Democrat Primary debate on Fox News, and 30% of the questions came from avowed supporters of Republican candidates.

I think a lot of the immature posters here trying to defend CNN and YouTube would be the first to complain.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Joe D — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:58:43 -0000

CAIR is a terrorist organization that represents terrorists. Great article overall :)

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Margalis — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:02:04 -0000

I've looked around HotAir (God help me) and I've yet to see any proof that CNN promised to limit questions to Republicans.

If you have proof of that, please post it. Otherwise please stop whining about rules you wholly invented.

You claim it is "well documented" but provided zero documentation.

All you have to do is post a link to the part of the contract where it states that only Republicans can ask questions. Should be easy since it's so well-documented.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Margalis — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:55:32 -0000

"Actually, CNN did say that they would limit questions to Republicans, they said that to the candiadates, they said it to the Florida Party and the National Party."

Proof in writing please?

""Plant" is the word that was used to describe Kerr, the other individuals are simply more manifestations of the same theme."

Yes, that is the word you use, the point is you use it incorrectly.

The debate format was such that anyone could submit questions. The general qualifies as part of anyone. The rules did not say that questions had to come from Republicans, and he did not pretend to be a Republican. All he "pretended" to be is someone who submitted a question to YouTube.

You don't get to invent pet rules for a debate or pet definitions for words. The guy did not pretend to be a Republican and to my knowledge there were no rules that question askers had to disclose their political affiliations or sign a loyalty oath.

Conspicuously missing from your arguments is the text of the actual rules and the contract between CNN and the debate comission that shows that only Republicans were allowed to submit questions.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Margalis — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 16:47:58 -0000

"I've defined "screening appropriately" as not allowing employees of opponents into the questioning phase."

Yes, that is your pet definition that you made up on the spot, rather than the definition that CNN agreed to. My pet definition of "screening appropriately" is screening out softball questions designed to allow candidates to pander - so can I argue that CNN has a Republican bias?

The general is not an employee of Clinton anyway. Fact check much?

Furthermore employees of opponents are members of the general public and Americans, same as anyone else.

Keep trying.
---

"At that debate, it's already been demonstrated that democrat activists, campaign staffers and volunteers were presented as ordinary "undecided" Democrat voters, if that's how the Democrats want to run their debate, then fine, thats their perogative."

Is it really shocking to you that people who take the time to submit questions to YouTube are politically active?

The idea that the people asking the questions have to be "ordinary undecided" voters is something you invented, it has nothing to do with the formal terms of the debate. Your definition of "ordinary" is moronic -- only people disengaged from the political process are ordinary?

Most "ordinary" people who take the time to post videos to YouTube are going to be politically active.

"If any of you think that's fair and appropriate for a PRIMARY debate, then I think you need to familiarize yourself with our primary/general election system and do so objectively, because you're seriously off the mark."

Then make those the rules.

This is the part you are missing. If you want the questions to only come from Republican then MAKE THOSE THE RULES UP FRONT.

You didn't do that. Only retroactively do you pretend that those *should* have been the rules, even though they weren't. The rules did not exclude Democrats, and the advertising extended an open invitation to everyone.

I'm not going to argue that the questions made sense for a primary debate. Then again, "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls" doesn't make sense in any debate. "Are you going to raise taxes like Democrats always do" doesn't make sense in a Democratic debate.

To say that the debates were stupid and useless is a very legitimate complaint: they were. But you don't get to invent rules after the fact, then complain that they were broken when nobody agreed to them in the first place.

Let me spell this out again, as clearly as possible:

If the primary debates can only include questions from undecideds from that party, make that part of the rules.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:51:39 -0000

I'll tell you how I define employee, it's pretty simple.

If you work for someone, say Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, and you accept money from said Senator, the Senator is your employer and you are his employee.

You can try to split hairs and say that this individual is a consultant, because he got a 1099 instead of a W-2, but for simplicity's sake, you're an employee.

Actually, CNN did say that they would limit questions to Republicans, they said that to the candiadates, they said it to the Florida Party and the National Party.

The primaries are for the parties to select their candidate and the general election is for the populace to select the winner.

"Plant" is the word that was used to describe Kerr, the other individuals are simply more manifestations of the same theme. Those that are discussing it are using the term to describe those individuals who misrepresented their credentials, it is being applied to those who acted on their own accord to misrepresent themselves and it's used to describe those who actively work for Democrat campaigns, organizations and individuals.

Play the word game all you want, but the system is the system and CNN's misrepresentations are now well documented, but in the contracts with the Party, the agreements with the candidates and their own statements to the media.

Your obfuscating the points by saying that these people were merely "politically active" when in point of fact, they are members of Democrat campaigns, employees for Democrat organizations and officials and individuals who have publically endorsed Democrat campaigns. This is more than being "politically active" it's being "active within specific Democrat campaigns and organizations", who, no matter how you look at it, have no place in a Republican Primary debate.

Save it for the general.

How bout a just a little intellectual honesty, anonymous. Stop asking what the definition of "is" is, it's foolish.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Anonymous — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 13:33:00 -0000

Anonymous is not my real name.

Your point is discredited because you keep using words like 'plant' that are completely inappropriate. You fail to justify the term being used. Wow, people who were politically active took the time to make a Youtube video asking candidates questions that were relevant to Americans. Real surprising.

And how do you define 'employees'? None of the questioners have been shown to be 'employees' of any campaign.

So, you're making a ridiculous stretch to prove an already weak point. JAS is just trying to back you up with all he can, but all he's got is that there is some 'historical foundational theory and practice of the PRIMARY process' that says 'No QUESTIONS from the other side'. That is just laughably bogus. The primary system is enforced by the fact the if you register with another party, you can't VOTE in the primary. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.

There's nothing about 'asking questions'. This thread just goes to show that if you keep reiterating an absurdly stupid case over and over and over, people out there will buy into it. Shame on you.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:20:49 -0000

Also, less than a third of the states have open primaries and among those that do, half have restrictions on their primaries limiting just how open they are. Your use of "many" is an attempt at obfuscating the fact that the PRIMARIES are for each party to select their own candidate.

I will further sugges that you aren't being intellectually honest about your desire to see a free-for-all primary. I suggest that your desire to excuse the questioners outright deception is a reflection of your political bias against republicans.

I highly doubt that if information were to surface that Karl Rove had his wife misrepresent herself as an "undecided democrat" and then ask Hillary about Mary Mahoney, that you'd be saying today that it was a fair question and that there would be no issue to take the moderators to task on.

I also doubt that if a staffer of Mitt Romney were to attempt to hide his party affiliation and claimed himself to be an "undecided Democrat" and then presented Senator Obama with a "when did you decide to stop beating your wife" kind of question that you would call that acceptable and above board.

The move for greater transparency in politics is a noble one, I find it greatly disturbing that some here would suggest that misrepresentation and outright lies on the part of CNN and the questioners is an acceptable and desirable political practice.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:08:42 -0000

dbthree,

With all due respect, you simply do not understand the primary process.

You may see two philosophies here, and by here, you seem to suggest this site/thread, but what the philosophies here are is immaterial. The reality is that the PRIMARIES are for the respective Parties to select their candidate, the general election is where left and right, Democrats v. Republicans duke it out.

Just because you may "want" the primaries to be an open free for all, doesn't change the historical foundational theory and practice of the PRIMARY process. The primaries are for the parties, and the general election is for everyone.

I'll also I'll point out that you are wrong about:

"Did Anderson Cooper REALLY say "Here's an undecided Republican with a question for X, Y, or Z?" I think its a bit of a stretch to just say that CNN said they were all undecided Republicans. Now, I may be wrong. They may have said something at the beginning of the broadcast that I didn't catch. But that still doesn't make a difference for me. "

CNN did in fact assure the Republican party of Florida and the Republican candidates taht this was to be a debate for and with Republicans only, which is why the operatives discovered were LYING ABOUT THEIR AFFILIATION in their videos. Your right, Anderson Cooper did not say at the beginning of the debate that each questioner would be an "undecided Republican. HOWEVER, CNN producers and management did say that they would limit questions to Republicans. THEY EITHER LIED (like the found operatives did) OR THEY ARE GROSSLY INCOMPETANT and given the history of these debates, there's more evidence of the former.

Whether or not it makes a difference to you is immaterial, there were fundamental misrepresentations made by CNN and the discovered questioners and that is simply unacceptable.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the primary process as it has existed for decades and no amount of Bush Derangement Syndrome or general Republican Derangement Syndrome excuses the gross misrepresentations of CNN and the outright LIES of the questioners discovered.

The PRIMARIES are for the parties and the GENERAL is for everyone, that's the system that's been in place for much longer than you've been alive and for much longer than CNN as been in operation, and it's not your place or theirs to unilaterally change this process and it's certainly not within the portfolio of CNN to assure the Republican party of an above board primary debate on then to allow a Clinton Campaign Steering Committee member and co-chari of VoteVets to filibuster for an amount of time that was greater than the amount of time allocated for 2 of the Republican Candidates.

You have made a fundamental error in your interpretation of what the PRIMARY ELECTION period is all about.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

dbthree — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:33:52 -0000

Many states have open primaries. Every question is a valid question when you have people outside of the party able to vote. This isn't, or shouldn't be, about appeasing the base, especially since so many people have a hard time identifying themselves with a party at an ever increasing rate.

Did Anderson Cooper REALLY say "Here's an undecided Republican with a question for X, Y, or Z?" I think its a bit of a stretch to just say that CNN said they were all undecided Republicans. Now, I may be wrong. They may have said something at the beginning of the broadcast that I didn't catch. But that still doesn't make a difference for me.

There are two philosophies here. Some of us feel that the debate should be open to anyone and that all questions are valid. Some of us feel that it should be closed, only to part members, and maybe even limited to undecideds. I think the latter is a very bad move, but to each their own.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

dbthree — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:23:23 -0000

The "bars and stars" question is incredibly valid, especially since its still very much an issue of contention in SC, an early primary state.

The Yankees question though, was bad.

If I changed the format, I'd let youtube users select a number of questions that had to be asked. That'll help make it an even more open format than it already is.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

dbthree — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:20:50 -0000

Mark,

None of the people on your list are employed by any of the candidates. The closest we have to employment is former inters and "work with Dick Durbin on SS reform".

I'll concede that its poor taste not to disclose where the General endorsed Hillary, but that shouldn't change anything. His question is a valid one, especially concerning Mitt Romney's (yet another) flip-flop position.

We'll just have to disagree though about your last point. I don't feel that the CNN YouTube Debates, or any of the debates on any network, should be about focusing on their party base. I think that, considering many states feature open primaries for independent voters (such as myself), it should be obligatory, even, that they discuss issues that matter to everyone. Any question should be free game.

If you ask me, because the internet is so new, Republicans haven't quite figured out how to "game" the Democrats at it, like they have in traditional media. Republicans time after time run far stronger campaigns and win because of their aggressive tactics. Until they figure out how to use it to their advantage, they'll continue to cry foul at everything that pops up.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Bart1963 — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 10:53:53 -0000

JAS... Kudos on the first well written and level headed reply to this article and resulting posts. Not only could I not have said it better... no one else hear has either.

Wow, I listen to the pablum that is spewed by both "sides" and I can't believe we are all (or at least most of us) supposedly brothers and sisters who call ourselves Americans. I hear what folks from "the other side of the isle" have to say and I can't help but ask myself "Do I misunderstand them as much as they obviously misunderstand me?". How quickly we forget the unity we had on September 12, 2001. Grow up people...

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Jas — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:22:21 -0000

I think a few of the commenters here don't understand what the primary/general election system is all about.

The primarys are party elections in a supermajority of states, yes there are some outliers which allow open primaries, and frankly, those primaries aren't weighted very heavily in the selection process at the convention. The primary election season is a time when party members vet their candidates within (key word there) their party. Meaning that they should be a relatively "closed" system, to allow the Republicans to select Republicans and Democrats to select Democrats.

Now let's talk about these two CNN/YouTube primary debates. First, the Dem debate. At that debate, it's already been demonstrated that democrat activists, campaign staffers and volunteers were presented as ordinary "undecided" Democrat voters, if that's how the Democrats want to run their debate, then fine, thats their perogative. The questioners from the Democrat debate were analyzed after the fact, and to date, no one has found any partisan Republicans portraying themselves as Democrats in that debate. If someone can produce evidence that this is not the case, please do so.

Now CNN presented this debate to the Republicans as a venue for Republicans to ask Republicans questions via YouTube, that's what the producer promised the Republican party (just as he did the democrat party). However, in this debate, CNN selected questioners who were serving as Co-Chair of an organization which as already endorsed Hillary, and further, this individual actually sits on one of Hillary's steering committee (CNN identified this person as an "undecided republican", which was untrue and easily found out by the first results page of a simple Google search). Also, CNN allowed a volunteer for Bill Richardson to portray himself as a Ron Paul Republican (which also could have been found out by simply looking at his other YouTube videos), CNN also presented another "undecided Republican" who was actually a Democrat employeed by Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, they also presented an "undecided Republican" who has and still endorses John Edwards, another "undecided Republican" was a Democrat raising money for Barack Obama, another was the wife of a Union Official who is endorsing Hillary.

There's more, like a former intern for Jane Harman, etc. The point is that these people were mis-represented to the extreme.

The Republicans should be allowed to have their PRIMARY debates without CNN assisting in the masquerade of Democrat activists portraying Republicans. Just like the Democrats should be able to hold their PRIMARY debates free form clandestine Republicans impersonating Democrats (which so far is how it's been going down).

Sure there is a time and a place for free-for-all questioning from any and all comers, but the PRIMARY is not the place or time for it. The Primaries are supposed to be for the parties to caucus amonst themselves to select the person they think best represents them.

This isn't about free speech, this isn't about the right of Democrats to ask Republican candidates questions, this is about the primaries where the respective parties should be allowed to conduct their primaries without interference from the other party, and CERTAINLY not assisted by news organizations claiming to be playing the role of unbiased moderator.

Finally, let me just point out that in a Republican PRIMARY debate, a Hillary campaign committee member was flown across the country on Googles dime (which may actually turn out to be an illegal in-kind campaign donation) and this Hillary campaign official was handed a mike and allowed to filibuster for an amount of time GREATER than that was allowed for 2 of the Republican candidates to speak.

If any of you think that's fair and appropriate for a PRIMARY debate, then I think you need to familiarize yourself with our primary/general election system and do so objectively, because you're seriously off the mark.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Mark \ — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:12:02 -0000

Margalis, I've defined "plant" a number of times in the discussions here. I've defined "screening appropriately" as not allowing employees of opponents into the questioning phase.

Do you work for CNN or YouTube? I have to wonder. The only reason you could be this intentionally obtuse is if you couldn't read what I wrote, or you worked for the PR departments of CNN or YouTube.

I'm curious, which is the only reason I continue to respond, exactly how functionally illiterate you can pretend to be.

Re: YouTube-CNN Republican Debate Reflects Poorly on New Media

Margalis — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 23:01:07 -0000

Of course you don't. You're a partisan hack that isn't part of the dreaded "reality-based community."

You can't define what a "plant" is and you can't prove that CNN agreed to screen out Democrats. Your idea of "screening appropriately" is screening in a way that pleases you personally, as if that is what CNN agreed to do.

In fact, CNN/YouTube invited *anyone* from the general public to submit questions, which rules out screening based on party affiliation.

You are complaining that "anyone" includes people who disagree with you. That's a nonsensical complaint.

Again, your complaint is that in a debate where anyone can submit questions some Democrats submitted questions. Have I got that right?