CNN Defends Debate Question Selection Process
Politico reports that CNN defended its selection process for questions posed at the Republican YouTube debate Wednesday. Political director Sam Feist said, "There were 5,000 questions sent in and we wanted to have the best questions. I think we found them."
In addition, "Feist reaffirmed the network’s position that it would not have aired a question from retired Army Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr had it known he was an unpaid adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign."
My take? CNN should have been upfront about the process used to select questions. I agree with the spirit of "pick the best questions" -- which means questions that are relevant to many voters; questions deliberately designed to be "gotachas" are simply ignored.
That's because I think these experiments in limited-gatekeeping should be designed to force candidates to address issues other than those offered by professional politicos and journalists. Because of the effort involved in creating a video question, the questioners are more likely to be politically (and technologically) informed than the average voter; I'm OK with that.
I'm not OK with a professional (ie, paid to do this for a living) politico being among the chosen. But for volunteers? Or people who were affiliated with a party once-upon-a-time? The area is grey: given the same question by two people, chose the one who has no affiliations. But if the question represents a contentious issue and the questioner has credibility, then I'd lead toward "it's OK."
In that light, Kerr, the questioner at the heart of the controversy, was unquestionably qualified to ask the question. And is not paid by any campaign, although he has donated time. (And money? We don't know. Should donations automatically make you eligible or ineligible to participate?)
Any assertion that the question was not valid gives short shrift to the concerns of Log Cabin Republicans and implies that all gay Americans are Democrats.
Final comment on the November debate: I think the accusation of "planting" questions is over the top: planting a question means I tell you what question you should ask, then I call on you as though I don't know what you are going to say. (Think the FEMA press conferences.) There is no evidence that CNN did this. No campaign would have had the power to do this because campaigns didn't pick the questions.
The First "Debate"
I'm still miffed (and mystified) that media overlooked Gary Berry's question in July. I paraphrased it as follows:
The three folded flags behind me covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son. Someday, mine will join them. I do not want my youngest sons to join them. By what date after Jan. 31, 2009 will all US troops be out of Iraq, and how many family members do you have serving in uniform?
Berry is Department Chair for National Security, Intelligence and Space at the American Military University. He is a former Deputy Chair at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces (part of the National Defense University, one of two war colleges under the direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). He finished Officer Candidate School in 1976 and spent 26 years in the Army. He was an Adjutant of DELTA Force and a Protocol Officer for the Chief of Staff, Army in the Pentagon. His last six years were spent working with the Defense Information Systems Agency.
I don't care if he's a Democrat, Republican or Martian -- his question was (is) relevant (and should have been recycled Wednesday night, given that most Americans say that they want us out of Iraq sooner rather than later). The candidate answers five months ago were telling. But the media -- and the blogosphere -- simply didn't seem to care that the candidates who "answered" ... really didn't.
Oh, Berry voted for Bush in 2000. By the red-state blogosphere standard of today, he shouldn't have been "eligible" to ask a question.
I disagree.
To listen to the 5000 questions with no break and no pause for notes would take more than two work weeks for one person. Actual time required to review and analyze much have taken more time.