There has been a lot of controversy today regarding last nights Republican CNN/YouTube debate, during which CNN asked Republican Presidential candidates 40 or so questions carefully selected from thousands submitted via YouTube by ordinary citizens. The gist of the controversy is that people are questioning the editorial process CNN used to select the questions and CNN’s vetting of the people asking the questions (it is coming out today that a lot of Democrats got questions in).

I personally have never been a big fan of the CNN/YouTube debate format and found some of the editorial choices made by CNN in both debates to be a bit baffling. I understand the symbolic value of having people submit questions through YouTube. I really do. However, to me having CNN editors pick and choose which questions to ask pretty much defeats the whole point of a “people-powered” debate. I think the CNN/YouTube process actually gives CNN more control over the things than a traditional debate format would. By putting the producers in a position where they can cherry pick from a vault of thousands of varied videos, you give them the power to choose inflammatory/off topic/goofy subjects that would be completely out of bounds otherwise. Kid, meet candy story.

The power of the social web is that it provides real people with access to unfiltered information, or even better information that has been filtered by people they know and trust. I don’t see anything revolutionary about a debate where CNN serves as our filter, just like they do every single day in choosing what they put on TV and their website. To me, this was a traditional, mainstream media driven debate masquerading as people-powered discourse. A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I think something like 10 Questions, where questions are voted on by real people instead of handpicked by CNN, is a better model.  Ultimately the power is in the hands of the people who determine what questions are asked.

That’s my two cents.

What do you think?

For me the highlight of the Personal Democracy Forum was seeing Seth Godin speak in person. You can check out the video of his presentation below. If you haven’t heard Godin before, take the 15 minutes and watch it.

Click To Play

You can see other videos from the conference here.

It was great meeting many people who share my interests and passions at the Personal Democracy Forum in New York City last Friday.  Instead of focusing on summarizing sessions or panel discussions, I'll focus on a chat I had with Utah State Representative Steve Urquhart who participated in a panel discussion about voter generated content since he launched Politicopia — a wiki out in Utah where citizens debated laws from the last legislative session.

Representative Urquhart told me that he wonders how the Internet and the proliferation of information sources will affect the common political experiences we have as a country.  For example, a powerful national moment was when a sickly Richard Nixon debated John F. Kennedy; although we'll never know how much Nixon's appearance during the televised debated influenced his loss, that was a common moment. (more…)

Well I'm here at Pace University in NYC for the Personal Democracy Forum.  Larry Lessig just started things off with an interesting talk on copyright and the presidential campaign.

The gist of his speech: copyright absolutely has its place; that place isn't necessarily online or in the presidential campaigns.

A big part of his speech talked about the presidential debates and how these debates are covered.  Mr. Lessig, like most of us in the blogosphere, believed that the debates should be shared and available to everyone through a variety of mediums.  He made an interesting analogy: airing presidential debates on proprietary networks where the content can't be shared is like locating voting booths in amusement parks like Disney World.  The accessibility of the debates is limited and therefore the value is lessened.  Mr. Lessig recommended that perhaps debates should be aired instead of publicly accessible networks, like PBS so the content can be shared with everyone.

Another point of his speech:  the value of "copying, remixing, and sharing" vs. media concerns about "commerical free riding" and "journalistic integrity".  These concerns are valid, but the benefits from sharing content are overwhelming.  Unfortunately, as Mr. Lessig said, "we can't force 'them' to be free…not in Iraq and certainly not 'here'."

What do you think?  How will the 2008 election be affected by "fair use", the ability to instantly create content, and the preference for sharing and remixing content?  I think these factors will, and to a large degree, already shown their power and impact.  As a result, these will be issues that politicians will be increasingly forced to address and deal with on a daily basis. 

Tom Friedman: "George Bush never could have been elected now if he was at Yale now, with cell phone and digital cameras" cataloging his college years and perhaps, every indiscretion he ever made.

It's going to be an interesting day, folks.