I don’t know if it means anything or not (I’m sure some will point to some kind of bias), but I’ve noticed that on FactCheck.org while the Dem’s have been caught in a few exaggerations with the facts (of course FactCheck, as they say, can’t judge some of the predictive promises candidates are making), by far the majority of the mis-information SEEMS to be coming from Republican candidates. And I wonder if that is because they are less aware than the Dem’s that sites like FactCheck ARE checking out (and posting) articles that look at the claims made and the facts presented? It just seems to me (anecdotally) that it IS the case that for whatever the reason the Republicans just don’t get this internet thing…or how many people are using it to do a lot more homework on the candidates and their claims.
While it’s tempting to conclude that the Democrats are embracing the Internet because they like freedom and democracy and Republicans don’t [I kid], that probably isn’t what’s going on here. The Democrats do use the 'net, but they’re constantly using it to try to get people “on message” - so they’re not encouraging a wide variety of opinions, in that respect. Remember the bloggers John Edwards fired or ‘let go’ because of some of their comments about abortion?
For the most part, it’s probably a generational thing and a difference in the makeup of the party’s bases.
The Dems are embacing the internet because the Corporations have taken over most of the other media. The internets is in their sights though.
The internets is a series of tubes which graft pours through.
My parents and my wife’s parents are tie-dyed-and-true hippies who have been incredibly powerful activists and organizers for various issues in their day. As far as computers and the internet are concerned, however, they are functionally illiterate.
Many of this generation who could still positively effect change are simply unequipped to do so. My folks still have the “make some signs and sit on the court steps” approach to communication and protest, and it simply is ineffectual in today’s world.
This is how Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, et al are so incredibly effective at “riling up the old folks” in their medium–older baby boomers don’t have the skills to seek alternative viewpoints, or even know how to challenge a viewpoint and seek out others for their cause. By painting the internet and blogs as some fearsome threat, the technologically ignorant are kept so.
So, my parents and many others, sit festering in frustration, fear, and intimidation of the internet.
I don’t know why he’s worried. A politician never answers the question he’s asked, he answers the question he wishes was asked. And if you’re going to ignore someone, who cares if it’s a snowman or Sam Donaldson.
This points to one of the two reasons why I was less than wowed by the youtube debate (the other being that the videos were selected by CNN. And I guess there was a third reason, which was that I didn’t watch the thing).
What I would love to see would be some variant of a “town hall” format debate in which the questioners said, “At the end of your answer to my question, I will give you a thumbs up or a thumbs down based on whether you actually addressed my question or not.” Not that I especially trust the average schmoe to be a master of rhetorical theory, but I think that knowing the camera would return to the average schmoe after the question might put the fear of god back into the candidates.
Also, do the factcheck.org people have a pundit gig on any network post-debates? That would be awesome.
Not that I’ve heard of. But its the first place I go to look after a debate (and I generally check the site for updates about once a week regardless)…its one of my favorite web sites.
(edit: If anyone is interested, here is their article on the youTube debates)
They did this a bit, actually. Some of the questioners were in attendance and were interviewed afterwards. Mostly they said no. I’ve seen some ‘gutsy’ TV interviewers request an actual answer after the politician has done their spiel, but they usually get the same non-answer.
I’d like it to happen immediately after the question, while the debate is still going on. On the one hand, it’ll put the questioner on the spot; on the other, if the questioner gives a thumbs down, it’ll look pretty bad for the candidate, and a thumbs-up will likewise look pretty good. When the questioner is interviewed after the debate, it’s going to be much less important to the candidate’s perceived performance in the debate.