The presidential primary debate calendar just got a virtual boost with the addition of the first online-only candidate forums. The events will be sponsored by the Huffington Post, Yahoo, and Slate, and will be held this fall. There will be debates for both the Democratic and Republican parties.
To say that this was inevitable would be an extraordinary understatement. The Internet has become an inescapable component of modern politics. In many ways it is supplanting the conventional media. Whereas past campaigns kicked off with televised speeches before a cheering hometown throng, many of today’s leading candidates opted to announce their entry into the race via their web sites. Television and newspapers used to be the exclusive outlet for candidate alerts, attacks, and adorations, but now YouTube has emerged as an unparalleled cyber-promotions vehicle. And fund raising, for which conventional media was no more than a perch from which to beg for change, has been forever transformed by the Internet’s ability to act as a real-time ATM that collects donations 24/7.
The Internet is also the home of tens of millions of the most engaged citizens and activists. In these early days of Campaign ’08, while most Americans are oblivious to the nascent electioneering, the netroots are abuzz with a vibrant dialogue. So where better to hold the early debates? It allows the candidates to address what is perhaps the most active and well informed constituency amongst voters. These are the people who, once taking sides, will be the volunteers, contributors, advocates, and foot soldiers of the campaigns as they mature.
Credit must be given to the debate’s sponsors for stepping forward with this initial effort. Whether or not it meets expectations rests with the execution. The candidates will be appearing from remote locations, which leverages one of several unique characteristics of online communications. Another is the ability for viewers to participate by asking questions and blogging the answers as quickly as they come.
But will the sponsors introduce any innovations that exploit the revolutionary advantages of new media? For instance, a connected community can produce instant reactions to candidate statements. The conventional media might use such a facility as another in a series of trivial insta-polls. But new media could have this information displayed for candidates who could then be called upon to react to the real-time pulse of the audience. Also, questions submitted online could be analyzed and sorted so that the subjects of most interest to the audience are addressed. If the subjects that rank highest are displayed for the candidates, they could provide answers even if the host fails to introduce the question. In effect, the universe of viewers usurps the role of a unitary host.
This may not be desirable in all circumstances. There are certainly occasions when a talented journalist can construct a probing question that elicits more candid and revealing responses. I’m not sure the host selected for these debates, Charlie Rose, fills that description. My personal opinion of Rose is that he asks overly long questions that seem designed to showcase himself rather than his guest. But effective interviewers do exist and there will be plenty of opportunities for that sort of encounter when the conventional media holds their debates.
Overall, the debut of new media as a player in the debate debate is positive, encouraging, and timely. But it must also be viewed as an experiment. Whether it is looked back upon as a success, a failure, or something in between, should not be a hard-coded judgment, but a set of observations that can be employed when modeling the next phase of the experiment. I look forward to the research, and I hope that the sponsors open up the process to the blogiverse and incorporate our interests and creativity.
