Yeah, But, Um, … Who Needs CNN?

By
July 29, 2007

While I understand the basic reasoning behind what CQ is suggesting, have bloggers form a committee to vet questions for a CNN YouTube debate, I don’t understand why one wouldn’t follow the thought through to its natural conclusion: Who needs CNN? A non-network affiliated effort that produced a good product would likely receive attention from every network, with plenty of clips and snippets showing up on broadcast and cable television. And the whole thing would be available via You Tube. Some other networks even dissed CNN for its effort, as opposed to promoting it.

So what’s the solution? How can we engage voters in a national forum through the New Media, while keeping the debate substantive and serious? I have a simple solution: have CNN cede the editorial/selection process to the New Media, in the form of the blogosphere.

CNN would ask bloggers to form a committee to review the YouTube entries. Since this debate is a Republican primary event, the bloggers should probably represent that segment of the electorate — primarily Republicans, but perhaps with independent/centrist representation as well. The committee would review all of the YouTube entries and narrow them down to around 20, through whatever process and criteria to which these bloggers agree. They would also agree to the order in which the questions would be asked.

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Pardon me if I don’t offer this comment in Russian, but a “blogger selection committee” would be an even worse joke than CNN. Most major bloggers are partisan hacks, and if the Captain is involved I’d be more than a little worried about censorship (see my name’s link).
    I previously outlined a better idea in the first comment here:
    buzzmachine.com/2007/07/26/thats-the-ticket/
    To add to that, each person would choose where they fall on the spectrum, and I’d attempt to obtain a balance – not a rightward tilt. Their self-rankings would be public to avoid monkey business. And, unlike the Captain’s plan, there would be no Central Committee.

  2. ajacksonian says:

    Of course citizens could just ask questions of the campaigns and post responses… a novel thought, this ‘freedom of the press’ concept, with having to trust fellow citizens to post their questions as given and then post the responses as given.
    Yes, far too much to expect a campaign to actually just interact with citizens in an open way… perhaps each would gather up questions, and try to fairly summarize them and put out responses? You know, campaign based on citizen’s questions?
    A novel idea, I’m sure… just far too much liberty and freedom in that… might almost think we were in a free country. Far better to be the vassal state to Incumbistan! Business as usual so the Incumbistani Emirs can rule forever… while we in Electistan get no one to represent us.

  3. A Proposal To CNN

    The Republican reluctance to engage in the scheduled September YouTube debate has created a fierce debate in the blogosphere, including something of a civil war at Hugh Hewitt’s Townhall blog. Hugh himself has adamantly insisted that Republican candida…

  4. Jamie says:

    The blogospew needs to get over itself. It is not even remotely impartial, not even remotely interested in FACTS, nor does it try to be. I would trust CNN before you or any other representative of the blogospew to run a debate.

  5. “Most major bloggers are partisan hacks”
    Newsflash: CNN is a serious partisan hack

  6. GM Roper says:

    Jamie:

    The blogospew needs to get over itself. It is not even remotely impartial, not even remotely interested in FACTS, nor does it try to be. I would trust CNN before you or any other representative of the blogospew to run a debate

    Ahh, Jamie, you remind me of the story, perhaps apocraphal in nature, of Churchill (?) waltzing into a ball with a trollop on each arm. Sir, you can’t bring women of questionable reputation in here.” “My good fellow,” said Churchill, “these women have well established reputations, it is the folk in there who have questionable ones.” Or words to that effect.
    Jamie, the difference between Us and CNN is that we acknowledge our biases. CNN has yet to acknowledge that it has one. And if you can’t see that, you need to perhaps read more blogs.

  7. Phoenix says:

    Ha Ha, AJ. :) I love when you get snarky. ‘Incumbistan’ and ‘Electistan’…… ha.

  8. “I would trust CNN before you or any other representative of the blogospew to run a debate”
    Yea, but you were the guy that ate paste in kindergarten and rode the short bus.

  9. seekeronos says:

    “The blogospew … is not even remotely impartial… I would trust CNN before you or any other representative of the blogospew to run a debate.”
    Uh huh. And you trust those globalist elites over at the CNN so much more because you are… oh, let’s see…
    …a brainwashed closet communist who believes everything that the CNN and the NYT (a.k.a. “The Ministry of Propaganda”) tells you?
    Yeah, I thought so.