Political Debates by Kasim Ercan Ekenler

Mass media has always played a large role in political campaigns. It makes sense in a democratic country to use all the tools available to share with the public the political stance of candidates on the important issues. It also makes sense to use those tools to share with the candidates the stance of the public, as well as their questions and concerns about the candidates. Until the last two presidential elections, the media used for this purpose has been what we now commonly describe as the traditional media: newspapers, magazines, and television. Newspapers and magazines have been used since the first U.S. presidential election, and television began playing a role as it became popular in America in the 1950’s and 1960’s. In the 2004 election, the internet first played a role in the presidential elections. It was successfully used to organize constituents, plan campaign events, and raise campaign donations, most notably by Democratic hopeful Howard Dean.
But in the most recent presidential election of 2008, Americans witnessed the internet “shifting into a central position in … terms of disseminating ideas.” (MacAskill) YouTube, a video sharing site, did not exist during the 2004 election, but was thrust to the center of the 2008 campaign. The video “I’ve Got a Crush … On Obama” was viewed over 2.5 million times within the first month it appeared on the site, and other political videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. (MacAskill) But the internet and YouTube were later used create a “virtual town-hall” when CNN and YouTube struck a deal to host both Democratic and Republican primary debates. (Hollihan 227) Americans at home were allowed to upload video questions to the site that could be asked of the candidates. (http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate ; http://www.youtube.com/democraticdebate) This venture was lauded as the “most democratic presidential debate ever” (O’Brien) as it offered every American the opportunity to personally (virtually) ask the presidential candidates a question. It also allowed Americans the opportunity to choose which questions were asked, because the questions selected were based on the number of times each question was viewed on Youtube. Despite these new opportunities for “pure democracy”, final selection of the questions was made by CNN, and this created controversy. Republicans claimed CNN demonstrated bias by allowing democratic supporters to ask questions of the Republican candidates. But despite the inherent possibility for bias that accompanies selecting whose voice is heard, the YouTube debates provide the most inclusive forum for presidential debates that modern technology allows.
The town hall meeting is an American institution that throughout history has allowed citizens a forum to discuss issues and question elected leaders. Governance in early New England was accomplished by discussion between the elders of the community and the inhabitants in the largest building in town. This worked well if the population was small enough, but as the town grew, town hall meetings about contentious issues became difficult. “[T]hose only who obtained places near the moderator could even hear the discussion.” (Fiske 100) The populations of many New England towns soon made town hall meetings insufficient and inefficient. In 1822 the town hall meeting was dropped in Boston in favor a local government that more closely resembles modern day municipal governments: the system was vested in a mayor, eight alderman, and 48 common council members, 4 from each of the city’s twelve wards. (Fiske 101) Our modern political system grew out of the failure of town hall meetings. Today the failure of the political system has brought us back to the town hall meeting.
As the American public has grown concerned their delegates lost touch with their concerns, we have seen a resurgence of the town hall meeting. In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain used town hall meetings to get a feel for local sentiment about national issues and to promote the idea that he was in touch with the concerns of American citizens. John McCain microphones and speakers at the meeting, and allows cameras to televise the meetings, ensuring that those not “placed near the moderator” could hear the discussion. Although this solved the problem of allowing everyone to hear the discussion, it did not provide everyone a voice at the town hall meeting. Questions posed at John McCain’s town hall meetings were screened by his political advisers, and were additionally limited by the local audience and their ability to be allowed to attend the meeting. American issues, though, are international and diverse. They require consideration of many opinions, more than can be obtained in selected American cities. The town hall meeting needed to be modernized beyond microphones and television.
Built around a desire to share information, the internet provides the perfect forum for sharing opinions of a diverse citizenry, organizing those opinions, and allowing further evaluation of those opinions by the same citizenry. The internet is the only building big enough to hold a national town hall meeting. YouTube serves as an unbiased city elder, collecting and counting the opinions of citizens and sharing them with the rest of the community. By accepting video questions and posting them online, the YouTube presidential debate forum allows every citizen to speak and to be heard. Additionally, by counting the number of views for each question, YouTube tracks “what people are talking about.” Heavily viewed questions have drawn citizens to listen and tell their friends to listen, and therefore represent the interest of the people. It is true that some people may not have internet access or skills to participate by using the internet or uploading video. But a certain base set of skills has always been required for political participation, from literacy to knowledge of the political system. Internet use has become a piece of the modern political skill set. Armed with such skills, American citizens have a new ability to participate in the political process in the mold of the oldest political forum, the town hall meeting.
It is a dangerous possibility, though, that the virtual town hall meeting has the appearance of objectivity and fair opportunity, but the reality of bias and corruption. Following the Republican Primary YouTube debate, questions were raised by Republican candidates about the selection of questions by CNN. Some candidates felt that CNN showed bias by allowing Democratic supporters to ask questions of the Republican candidates. “I think it compromises the integrity of what it was supposed to be and that is a very objective people's kind of debate,” Mike Huckabee said following the debate. (Garrett) Although Huckabee felt the process was corrupted by democratic supporters, CNN felt that the substance of the question was more important the political party of the questioner:
The issues raised during last night's debate were legitimate and relevant no matter who was asking the questions. The vested interests who are challenging the credibility of the questioners are trying to distract voters from the substantive issues they care most about. Americans are tired of that discredited low-road approach, and throughout this election campaign CNN will stay focused on what the candidates are saying about the pressing issues facing this country at a critical time in our history. (Garrett)
Although the YouTube forum allows the freedom of submission and freedom of viewership, it does not allow freedom of selection, nor does it guarantee unbiased selection. But the forum does provide more transparency, it allows more participation, and it in doing so has the ability capacity to satisfy Americans who feel their voice has not been heard. This is supported by CNN’s additional response to Republican critics: “Judging by the fact that last night's event was the most-watched primary debate ever, it seems that the audience responded to our focus on plain-spoken questions about important issues.” (Garrett) The town hall was created to allow people a venue to speak their mind, and have the opportunity to be heard. Although the YouTube forum suffers from the dangers of bias and preferential selection, it is the best opportunity to be heard American citizens have been given since the early 1800’s.
Bias and corruption are an inherent part of the political process, but Americans will continue to find ways to reduce their power. When New Englanders felt these forces were having undue influence, they would meet at the town hall to find a way to mitigate these forces and find a fair resolution. Although the YouTube debates might not be the “most democratic debates ever”, they are possibly the most democratic debates since the time town populations outgrew the size of the town hall. The YouTube forum provides a way to guarantee first amendment rights in the political context. Implicit in the right to freedom of speech is the right to be heard. Even if the candidates do not hear our question, Americans now have a formal way to allow millions of Americans to hear each citizen’s concerns. Only through popular, technologically advanced media like YouTube can presidential debates return to the town hall.

Works Cited
Fiske, John. Civil Government in the United States: Considered with some Reference to its Origins. 1904
Garrett, Major. “CNN Defends Its Use of Democratic Supporters in Republican YouTube Debate”, FoxNews.com, November 30, 2007. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314002,00.html)
Hollihan, Thomas A. Uncivil Wars: Political Campaigns in a Media Age, 2nd Edition. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.
MacAskill, Ewan. “Debate bring Youtube to centre of 2008 presidential campaign.” The Guradian.com, 23 July, 2007. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/jul/23/broadcasting.digitalmedia)
O’Brien, Luke. “YouTube and CNN discuss ‘Most Democratic’ Presidential Debate Ever”. Wired.com, 14 June, 2007. (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/06/youtube_and_cnn/)