The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
And, this one's for Governor Romney: "...Cocks?"
Veegeezee
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So this showed up on Wired a couple days ago, but because I live in a hole I didn't notice it until it hit slashdot. I don't think we've made mention of it around here, but feel free to ignore me if we have already.
Wired story here, and the YouTube site in question here.
The only thing that tweaks me is not knowing anything about the question selection process. Obviously, the mean quality level of stuff on the interweb isn't likely to be conducive to presidential debate, so without a filter of some kind the whole exercise would probably be mired by the unbelievable stupidity of your typical YouTube contributor. I guess the process might not be very different from that of the user-submitted questions sections of the latest debates, except scaled by powers of ten. Maybe you guys know more.
What do you think - exciting new medium, potentially-jury-rigged hogwash, or altogether inconsequential showmanship?
Wired wrote:With presidential candidates scrambling to get internet hip on the 2008 campaign trail, YouTube and CNN have created a new debate format in which voters will send in video questions for the would-be-commanders-in-chief to answer in televised forums.... Potential questions will be posted to YouTube's YouChoose platform, a section tagged specifically for material relating to the 2008 campaign. Questions will not be selected based on the number of views on YouTube. Nor will the selection process be made public, in order to prevent candidates from prepping. During the debates, the questions will be aired on a giant video monitor. YouTubers will be able to leave comments on the questions beforehand. They will also be able to comment on the candidate's responses, which will be posted to YouTube after the political showdowns have wrapped up.
Wired story here, and the YouTube site in question here.
The only thing that tweaks me is not knowing anything about the question selection process. Obviously, the mean quality level of stuff on the interweb isn't likely to be conducive to presidential debate, so without a filter of some kind the whole exercise would probably be mired by the unbelievable stupidity of your typical YouTube contributor. I guess the process might not be very different from that of the user-submitted questions sections of the latest debates, except scaled by powers of ten. Maybe you guys know more.
What do you think - exciting new medium, potentially-jury-rigged hogwash, or altogether inconsequential showmanship?
Veegeezee on
0
Posts
They actually seem to be putting together a system for the population at large to speak their minds, freely exchange and refine their ideas, and then put them to the candidates in a meaningful and open fashion. Not to say there aren't any numbers of places it can fall apart or become an empty show between here and there, but kudos for the vision if nothing else.
Youtube is a gathering place for some of the most socially failed and mentally defected "people" on the internet. This will not bode well.
I hope to god comments are disabled.
Look for the Tits would be my guess.
I'm gonna guess that it means "Limed for the Truth", which is I guess our resident meme here.
I agree with Shinto as well. Forum-like debates seem like they'd be much more productive than the stuff we get now.
also, the "9/11 truthers," and i hate to even call them by that name, can single handedly turn this whole thing to shit. not to lump them in with the others, but still. and have you ever read the comment section when something remotely serious comes up? i just asked my puppy what he thought about the idea. he laughed.
Yep, in fact I doubt most of the people who hang out all day on Youtube will care enough to participate.
This is missing the inevitable chain-letter comments.
No, I mean having the candidates actually talking to each other and questioning each other. Like . . . debating.
wouldn't that require, like, frank and open discussion about important issues and give everyone a clear idea of what each candidate is claiming to believe?
Not only do I want to see more public participation and debate, but I'd love to see the candidates have a real, (preferably civil) back and forth discourse. If Giuliani's little verbal shout-down of Ron Paul had been followed up by Ron's immediate rebuttal, it would have been less effective.
I've seen a ton of good proposals though, and I think they all should be embraced. I liked the idea from Gingrich where, instead of a 90 minute 'debate', they had 90 minute sit downs with each of the candidates (or even just 9 minutes). Because if there's not going to be interaction, you might as well embrace it with a Tim Russert style interview. Speaking of which, I just an article I probably will not be able to find again that claimed that with the exception of McCain (who always went on these shows) none of the Republican candidates are seriously approaching the Sunday interviewers. With very good reasons.
Personally I'd do round table with three or four candidates. I've also seen an idea which actually had questions and formats that were most appropriate for becoming President. In one idea, the candidates would watch a short discussion between two or more experts on a certain subject and then the candidates would say which of the two they most agreed with and why. For fun, you could throw in a liar or two into the discussion and have the candidates pick out the crook.
And finally, there is a small group of cynical analysts who now believe the President does absolutely nothing and that his most important job is selling image. I came up with this idea on my own. Most of the interactions of the American public with their president is during a 5 minute speech they read when ever something terrible happens. So, for each of the candidates I would give them either a historical speech that never was (Such as Nixon's Apollo 11 speech, or Eisenhower's D-day has failed speech), or I would make one up using some of the best speech writers. For extra bias you could even tailor make the speech based on likely scenarios embraced by the candidate.
While this would not show in any way how good a President they would be at stopping or preventing such disasters, it would tell how much image they bring to the table. If that's really all a President does these days, then we can at least nominate the one best for that job. Man... now I just saddened myself by reminding myself of a pretty decent Dick novel about how the President is secretly a robot and people nominate based on which one they think the First Lady (which is a permanent position) will like the most as husband... also there is time travel and Nazis involved.
http://thornsbook.com online novel