« ‘Pimp My News’ Part 1: Hard Hitting News | Home | Cable 15 Interview »
Fraud on the American Voter
By Lerone D. Wilson | July 24, 2007
For many months now I have grown increasingly skeptical with the regard to the increased willingness on behalf of ‘big media’ to promote this ‘New Media’ concept without a firm grasp or consensus on what exactly it is. Finally I was able to put my doubts into words in a recent light hearted post entitled ‘New Media and Your Uncle Keith‘. However in light of Monday’s YouTube/CNN Democratic Presidential ‘debates’, my light hearted skepticism has turned into downright fear.
Throughout the mid 1970’s and early 1980’s presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan organization who prepared the debate formats and questions. In 1988 however the league abruptly pulled out of the debates, issuing the following statement:
The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates … because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates’ organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.
Following the departure of the League of Women Voters, the Republican and Democratic Parties formed the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is currently responsible for the softball ‘debates’ we are now exposed to.
It is frightening that essentially the exact same concern the League of Women Voters had in 1988 has indeed come to pass. However what makes it downright scary, is the fact that ‘New Media’ is becoming an accessory to the ‘hoodwinking of the American public’ which the League of Women Voters feared.
I have no doubt that some hotshot executive at CNN dreamed up their collaboration with YouTube in the debate process, thinking that it would be ‘new’ and ‘edgy’ (all that ‘New Media’ claims to be) and would ‘democratize’ the process. Nevertheless what it has done is create the appearance of democratization through allowing the American populace to ask questions via YouTube videos, while CNN and The Commission on Presidential Debates still retain absolute control over what is being asked, and how it’s being asked.
Have we learned anything new about the candidates from this ‘democratized’ debate? What difference does it make if I’m making a video of my question, or e-mailing, or calling in? For that matter was this debate any different than any of the countless ‘debates’ and forums we’ve already seen this year? Finally, when will the candidates be allowed to actually interact with each other, and speak for more than 1 minute about truly substantial issues… you know, like a real debate?
It strikes me as odd that in this media culture I can find any of a number of media zealots relentlessly prodding and debating a slew of politicians, figureheads, and spin doctors, on cable news, yet when it comes time to hear from the very people we elect to preserve our democracy, they are untouchable.
I’ve long chided YouTube, and ‘new media’ for that matter, as simply being a collection of silly video clips often involving hilarious acts of stupidity, and guys getting kicked in the balls in new and laughable ways. Nevertheless I don’t want this folly conflicting with democracy. When snowballs start asking questions at debates we have a serious problem, and it doesn’t help that we’re writing it off as being ‘democratizing’.
But at the end of the day does it really matter who is asking the questions? As long as the political parties are controlling their own debates how can we expect it to be anything but an extension of their campaign trails? The League of Women Voters was absolutely right in 1988, and the internet is simply making the problem worse.
Topics: Media/Politics |