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.
Comments
I think that some of the questions that were in the debate were not relevant (ie How many guns do you own?, or the yankees or redsox question)or they had chosen to many questions that were almost the same. They should have replaced some of these with more relevant questionse like the many healthcare questions that were asked on YouTube, or gave other candidates more chances to answer instead of letting Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney bicker about each other. These debates would actually help people decide if they give all candidates the same opportunity to answer questions. Other than a few things like that I believe this was a very good start at a new form of political debate (actually answering the publics questions and not the media’s) that will probably draw more people to politics and to actually vote for the person that they believe instead of predetermining a party and not care who is the nominee.
The standard wasn’t that someone who VOTED for a candidate was ineligible to ask questions. The standard was that someone whose name is on a Democratic campaign’s stationery or Web site ought to be ruled out of a question at a Republican debate, or if he or she is not, the audience should be informed of that involvement.
You can’t tell me that Democrats wouldn’t be upset if someone whose name was on Romney for President stationery was allowed to ask a conservative question of the Democrats, that they would not complain of “gotcha” tactics or providing insufficient data on questioners.
I am sick of Obama and Hillary - I won’t vote for either as an Independent voter, but I want to vote for someone.
The debares are ridiculous to me in its
set-up. Weed out the questions before debate and ask EACH candidate for answers. No one is addressed much other than “O” or “H.” I think I am interested in Mr. Biden, but he doesn’t get to speak much, so I don’t know.
The question about believing everything in the bible was a waste of time on other subjects! Remember - “church and state” separation? Also, how can that be so if a minister runs for President.
We Americans out here are very disenchanted. I don’t care at this point what party they are in - just let me hear what they say!!!! The questions set-up is ridiculous…a movie screen with just anyone out there asking questions - if they have been screened then you need someone new to set them up.,,,someone with some smarts. The debates are very amateurish and leave a lot to be desired. They need to get their “professional” act together.
Okay have i missed what a caucus is.similar to a primary?Have I been completly asleep on this..J
IF I WAS ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION I I would ask a two part Question that would be to Mr. Obama
1. HOW DO YOU PLAN TO KEEP AMERICA SAFE FROM TERRORISM WHEN YOU HAVE A FRIEND WHO IS A
KNOWN TERRORIST AND HAS ACTED OUT ACTS OF TERRORISM AGAINT AMERICA. “BILL AYERS”
2. Why is it ALWAYS RACIS:
* To Point out the connection between YOU and a white man who happens to be a terrorist.
* To point out the similarity between YOU and two white women who are famous for being
Celebrities.
* To point out the connection between YOU and a black man who happens to have run Fannie Mae.
* To point out the connection between YOU and a black woman who happens to be his wife, and
Who said she wasn’t really proud of America until her husband was nominated.
* To Point out where you got to Church and Who your Pastor is.
Mr. Obama the vast majority of voters understand the tyranny of phony racism claims, and resent them. They may be too afraid to tell pollsters so, but they have seen this sort of nonsense for decades. It is now time for YOU to tell the truth and face down those who racialize ordinary politics. Mr. Obama STOP PULLING OUT THE RACE CARD when every a question is ask of you about your view and friends.