Tag: CNN

Paul Begala on Edwards

Here is the CNN exchange between Paul Begala and Anderson Cooper that I mentioned earlier today. Alex Castellanos gets in on it, too.

COOPER: Yes, but, I mean, Paul, you’ve gone through this, obviously, with Bill Clinton. What do you make of the statement that John Edwards released just a few hours ago?

BEGALA: I thought it was bizarre. I thought this …

COOPER: Bizarre?

BEGALA: Bizarre. It was way too detailed. Way too much information. I don’t want to hear him talking about what medical tests he’s going to take. I thought it was way too …

COOPER: You’re talking about taking a paternity test?

BEGALA: Yes. God, shut up, Senator, with all due respect. He needed to say, I did it, I lied, I hurt my wife and I will — I am going to apologize to my wife publicly because I’ve humiliated her publicly, and then shut the hell up.

I thought it was way too self-referential. It was really narcissistic, it was really kind of a creepy statement, frankly. He needed to say a lot less, basically, to say I’m sorry and particularly apologize publicly to his wife.

COOPER: Alex, in the statement he says he’s had become increasingly narcissistic and egocentric. What did you make of the statement?

CASTELLANOS: And then he goes on to produce a fairly narcissistic statement. I thought — I was confused by it. I thought a lawyer or somebody who’d been on the national scene that long would know better.

But you know there are things in there, like I was 99 percent honest. You’re either honest or you’re not. There were lines in there that — you know, I’ve beaten myself up enough. And I’ve been stripped bare.You get the sense that he still thinks he’s the victim here. And I don’t think that most folks looking at this situation would agree.

I’m with Begala and Castellanos. Yuck.

Jay Severin, unreliable source

Here’s the kind of false propaganda Jay Severin pumps into the heads of his listeners, whom he likes to call “the best and the brightest.” Within the past 15 minutes, he went into a riff about how the mainstream media, out of “professional courtesy,” would not cover the fact that CNN had allowed Democratic ringers to take part in the YouTube debate. He specifically mentioned the New York Times as refusing to cover the story.

In fact, both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran prominent stories today, both of which were featured on Jim Romenesko’s heavily trafficked media-news site, along with Media Nation. Now, the Times and the Post are only the two most important newspapers in the country. But just for good measure, check out the results of this Google News search.

Severin either lied about today’s Times (and the rest of the media), or bloviated about what he imagined the Times had done without bothering to check. I’m not sure which is worse.

How CNN blew it

If CNN executives took citizen media seriously, then they wouldn’t be facing charges that they’re in the tank for the Democrats. Well, OK, they probably would, but the charges wouldn’t seem as credible.

Following Wednesday night’s CNN/YouTube debate, it was revealed that retired general Keith Kerr, a gay man who asked the candidates a pointed question about why they oppose letting openly gay men and lesbians from serving in the military, was a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton’s. And that turned out to be only the most notable of what conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is calling Democratic “plants.”

Well, of course, it was incredibly stupid of CNN to do such a poor job of vetting the 5,000 or so videos that were submitted by YouTube users. And it certainly didn’t help that Kerr was allowed to hector the candidates from the audience. His question was perfectly legitimate, but his Clinton affiliation should have disqualified him. (And it’s too bad that Anderson Cooper is getting tainted by this. I thought he did an exceptionally good job of keeping the proceedings moving along while remaining substantive.)

But why is CNN deciding which videos to use in the first place? As my former Boston Phoenix colleague David Bernstein wrote after the first Democratic YouTube debate in July, CNN “pretty much created a TV show out of the free raw video materials, not entirely unlike an episode of America’s Funniest Home Videos.”

So let me repeat and expand on a suggestion I made back then: If CNN wants to harness the power of citizen media, then it should go all the way. Here’s what I’d do:

  • Have people upload videos in six or eight subject categories — the war in Iraq, terrorism, taxes, immigration, the environment, whatever.
  • Subject those videos to light vetting to make sure none is tilted for or against a particular candidate, or is grotesquely offensive.
  • Let the YouTube community vote on the best video in each category. Those are the questions that will be asked.

Such a system wouldn’t be perfect. One problem, of course, is that the candidates would get to see the questions ahead of time. But so what? We should be looking for thoughtful answers rather than making these debates a test as to who can spit out the best instantaneous soundbites.

There’s also the possibility that the process would be hijacked in some way. But I think that’s a risk worth taking. Besides, how would that be any worse than letting people associated with Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ campaigns ask questions, as CNN did?

“Score this one for the people,” says the Boston Globe in an editorial today. Well, no. This was CNN’s show from start to finish. Let the people decide — then we can celebrate.

A better YouTube debate

May I make a confession? I completely forgot about last night’s Democratic debate, and thus missed the two-hour exercise in YouTube-fueled citizen participation.

But I can definitely see both sides regarding the one controversy the format engendered: CNN’s decision to handpick the questions rather than let the YouTube community vote on them. The chances of campaign workers’ monkeywrenching the results were high. On the other hand, if CNN is going to pick which questions it wants the candidates to be asked, it might as well let Anderson Cooper ask the questions.

David Bernstein of the Phoenix writes that CNN “pretty much created a TV show out of the free raw video materials, not entirely unlike an episode of America’s Funniest Home Videos.” He’s right.

So here’s an idea that might work. Let CNN pick six or seven (or 10) broad categories that it wants to put to the candidates. Let the YouTube community vote on the best question in each of those categories. Questions that mention any candidate by name can be thrown out. What do you think?

Over at YouTube today, you can watch the debate, question by question, and post your own video response.