Youtube Debates and the Media

CNN held a youtube GOP debate yesterday. Some thoughts.

First comes the question of the supposed "user participation." While it is a step up from the usual questions coming from the host network's active pundits, it leaves something to be desired. What good does it do to ask for thousands of these video submissions, when the network has the absolute and final say about what gets asked in the end? Sure, a user-selected set of questions may have the lets-pick-the-most-ludicrous-videos-as-a-joke effect, but I tend to have more faith in the internet community than that.

No, what I saw yesterday was a far cry from CNN airing "the people's questions." It was merely a way to give the illusion that the will of the people was being addressed, while strengthening what the media already does very well: shaping public opinion. Now, in the name of the people's medium (the internet), they ask the questions they would have liked to have asked anyways, except behind the mask of the average joe.

Example? Ron Paul's question regarding a possible North American Union, starting with a superhighway connecting Canada, Mexico, and the United States. The video shown attempted to marginalize Paul by marginalizing his supporters. The fact that the superhighway is real and the plan is already underway is irrelevant to the media. The perception, at least to those that are uninformed (lots in that particular auditorium), is that Paul's supporters are wacky and so is he. An interesting choice of question indeed.

Also, notice the speaking times for each candidate during the debate:

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Giuliani -- 16:38, during 20 times
Romney -- 13:18, during 19 times
Thompson -- 12:16, during 12 times
McCain -- 11:00, during 12 times
Huckabee -- 10:00, during 11 times
Paul -- 7:43, during 9 times
Hunter -- 5:06, during 7 times
Tancredo -- 3:49, during 7 times

Is it any wonder that they are generally in proportion with the national polls? It brings up an interesting question: What came first, the chicken or the egg? The chicken being a candidate's high poll numbers and the egg being media exposure of the candidate. I submit that the media covers certain candidates fairly and others, well, unfairly. It labels some as fringe extremists and portrays others as having a broad coalition of support. It will also choose exclude coverage for some altogether! The result is a feedback loop of success for the chosen ones and an uphill battle for the unfortunate.

This brings me to the larger question of the media. Since when is it the duty of TV networks to decide who gets the bulk of attention and who doesn't? The vast amount of political power wielded by these networks is unbelievable. This is probably something most people reading this will already know, however. The question is, what can we do about it? Not much. Educate yourself and those around you. See through the subtle suggestions. Don't rely on the perception of popular support or opposition to shape your views. Doing so will inevitably lead to sheepdom.

Introduction

Welcome to the Liberty Movement. Stay tuned for all things freedom!