During the debates, eight Democratic presidential candidates responded to pre-submitted and screened debate questions, which ranged in topic from global warming, to same-sex marriages, to the war in Iraq.  CNN insisted that the questions, both serious and irreverent, were “from the people.”

Yglesias argues that try as they might to bill these debates as a “historic event,” CNN and YouTube succeeded only in providing a “further level of mediation between citizen and politician,” rather than making headway in Politics 2.0. By claiming the videos were from the people, CNN conveniently removed any responsibility for the video content, though the network screened the over 3,000 videos and selected those that aired.

“The results were, at times, cuter than ordinary, at times more aggravating than usual,” he summarizes, “But they were mostly notable for the fundamental sameness of the process.”

Nevertheless, Yglesias points out that the Internet is having an effect on the press’ reporting of the Presidential election.  He cites an online video released by candidate John Edwards that criticized heavy press coverage of his pricey haircuts. The video gained instant popularity and has the potential to “shame the press out of its continued interest in his haircut.”

Yglesias postulates that because television advertising is so expensive and not necessarily successful for candidates, many are turning to the Internet not only to be heard but to respond to press coverage and the superficiality of television reporting.

Newspapers, like television, are feeling the heat from the Internet and its effects on today’s media culture.  Television, Yglesias believes, is using the Web 2.0 trend to become “more vapid that ever,” as exemplified by particularly pun-filled debate questions.  Newspapers, thus, might do well to head in the other direction and use new Internet media to connect with its audiences and solicit thought-provoking and insightful content.

Source: Los Angeles Times through Media Bistro and Media Guardian