The People Have Spoken! (Note: The People have been edited for content.)
I think CNN took an interesting baby step with the first of their YouTube Presidential debates on Monday night. Granted, the result was looked remarkably like every other debate I can remember: a bunch of people in power suits giving canned sound-bite ready responses to carefully screened and approved questions presented by a magnificently coiffed journalist. The ratings seemed to show disinterest, with more people tuning into Sunday’s non-revolutionary, business-as-usual debate, even in the 18-49 demo.
Why was that? Lots of reasons (Monday night post-work fatigue, mid-2007 debate fatigue, Anderson Cooper’s silver mane fatigue), but the one that kept me from tuning in was that the whole thing seemed like a pointless stunt. It’s a case of getting wrapped up in the surface trappings of the medium without paying attention to how that medium works (ie user ratings, comments, video responses). I can almost hear Jon Klein, the president of CNN, calling out, "Look, YouTube Generation! We get you! We’re reaching out to you! LOLZ pwned g2g kthxbi!"
What would have gotten my attention would have been if YouTube had gone to the candidates and pointed out YouTube’s growth has exploded while CNN’s has slowly shrank, and would’t the candidates love to speak directly to that audience? And after the candidates wiped their slavering palates clean and said yes, YouTube could have sat back, smiled to itself, and listened to Jon Klein’s stomach implode as they gave the candidates a quick tutorial on how to post video responses to the questions with the highest and most positive user ratings. It would have been an incredible coup, not only for the company, but for the whole Web 2.0 idea of lowering barriers to conversation, something our political discourse has needed for a long time. The idea of giving candidates instant negative ratings and illiterate comments for their focus-grouped responses probably would have sent most of the candidates reeling, but if they can’t handle a pack of online goons, how can we expect them to deal a real catastrophe? If modern politics is all about sending the right message, how better than to field test that message in a system that allows for instant feedback?
Instead, YouTube sat on its beach blanket as the 95-pound weakling kicked sand in its face. CNN’s political team chose the questions, and YouTube didn’t even allow users to rate, comment, or post video responses (at least, not easily. If you watch a video the end, choose "share" and dig the video’s ID out of the URL, you can put that video into the usual YouTube interface). Media Dinosaurs can put on their Critic’s Sweaters and tut-tut about how Web 2.0 is a failure, how it’s an empty promise, how tv still dominates, and how no one wants to be engaged in politics.
What was missing? Authenticity. YouTube is more popular than television because it’s spontaneous, strange, and real. Yes, a roomful of guys humping a couch is bizarre as hell, but there’s no denying it was an authentic human experience, even if the end result for the makers of that video will probably be a lifetime of greetings like "Hey, you were one of those couch humpers!" People want authenticity from the people who would lead them, because the stakes are so much higher. And by doing business as usual, CNN and YouTube passed on an opportunity to give us honest words from the people we’re supposed to trust with tax money, nuclear weapons and interns.
Still, this was a baby step, and most of those end up with the baby losing its balance, falling on its ass and crying its lungs out. I hope that CNN and YouTube will be able to pick themselves up and take bigger steps. Their business and our nation may depend on it.
