Thumbs Down On The GOP YouTube Debate

[myclob]

Thumbs Down On The GOP YouTube Debate

Posted by Hugh Hewitt  | 7:29 PM

The YouTube debate was a silly, and at times absurd exercise in giving air time to many idiots separated by an occasional responsible speaker, and the question selection by CNN demonstrated a huge left-wing bias which will inevitably appear in any subsequent YouTube debate organized by the MSM which is overwhelmingly staffed by the left.

When journalists ask questions, they have to at least try to balance the questions (unless it is Chris Matthews). Asking really dumb, offensive, or inappropriate questions usually doesn't happen as a result.

But as we saw with the "insufficiently black" question, the CNN team used the device of the third party video to inject a question that would have embarrassed any anchor posing it.

If the GOP candidates agree to this format, expect a series of cheap shots about all of the top tier candidates. Patrick worries that the Republicans will appear behind the times if they take a pass. Perhaps, but if that means skipping a no win set-up where MSM agenda journalists work for weeks to put a video shiv into one or more of the Big Three, I am for it. The second tier folks will no doubt show up hoping for a Hail mary moment, but Giuliani, Romney and Thompson ought to say no thanks.

To illustrate,take a look at this story --a bit of agenda journalism that Jonathan Martin at Politico.com told me on air today is built on a story that has been floating around for months. Imagine some YouTube video asking Rudy why he's defending a suspected pedophile. No MSMer would dare ask such a loaded question, but imagine what the gang at CNN would do. They covered for the Dems with a series of overwhelmingly left-biased questions at the first YouTube debate, with a very few tough, serious questions thrown in. That dynamic would change completely in a GOP YouTube debate --they or their counterparts at a different network will be gunning for the Republicans, and the question set will be designed to embarrass or ridicule.

Go to all the networks and talk to all the journalists, yes. It was cowardly for the Dems to refuse to debate on Fox with folks like Brit Hume and Chris Wallace asking the questions. It was a good move to let Chris Matthews moderate the first debate, and also for the device of read questions to be introduced there (especially since the Politico team was far more interested in serious questions than CNN was.)

But skip the set-ups. Not only is it ridiculously bad politics, the format diminishes the importance of the presidency, at least as it was managed by CNN.

No Sale, Patrick

Posted by Hugh Hewitt  | 11:27 PM

Patrick really want the GOP candidates to do a YouTube debate. Why not have them go in barrels over Niagara Falls --that would get a lot of interest as well?

What Patrick fails to see is that it isn't about talking to people or being willing to connect with voters through new media. Both Giuliani and Romney --less so Thompson-- have been very, very available to all sorts of people at stop after stop, and both do all sorts of media without preconditions. They answer all the questions.

What they are wise to avoid is a set-up ambush using gimmicks that separate the ambush from the planner. See my post below, but the YouTube formay allows nameless, faceless MSM lefties to hit below the belt and then shrug their shoulders and say "It wasn't my question."

The CNN YouTube debate was orchestrated by MSMers with no names and no accountability for the buffoonery that ensured. The GOP candidates skipping such a circus is not the same as the Democrats passing on a Fox News Channel debate moderated by Brit Hume and Chris Wallace, and I'd blast the GOPers if they skipped an MSNBC debate. In fact I'm all for letting Keith Olbermann moderate a debate of the GOPers because poor old Keith wouldn't know what hit him. It isn't about being willing to go anywhere and answer anything, it is about refusing to walk into a media box canyon where the anonymous MSMers will have had a few days to pick the best thirty body slams from tens of thousand of moonbat-generated videos. Would Patrick recommend the GOP candidates attend a YearlyKos sponsored and nutter-moderated debate? That's what the YouTube Debate, GOP edition will be.

Running for president is supposed to show us that candidates are prudent, and the wise choice here is to say yes to every MSM debate, and no to gimmicks, no matter how appealing they are to the slackers and snowmen demographic.

If you are feeling ambitious this weekend, develop a YouTube hit question of the sort I am writing about here and send the link to me at hu...@hughhewitt.com. Perhaps a few examples will spell it out for Patrick.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall is fulminating: "But if they can't face Youtube how can they defeat the terrorists?" Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. Being stupid about media is a qualification to fight the war on terror. And tackling snowman videos measures leadership. Sheesh.