En días pasados tuvimos la oportunidad de ver el papel que jugó YouTube en la Carrera electoral 2008 en los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica. Los ocho precandidatos del Partido Demócrata tuvieron la oportunidad de participar en un debate que fue patrocinado por la cadena norteamericana CNN y el sitio de videos YouTube. Dicha cobertura permitió que millones de cibernautas y televidentes pudieran seguir y participar en la discusión enviando sus preguntas.
¿Hasta dónde este nuevo modelo de debate y "democraticación" de la pregunta será la fórmula que estaremos viendo en los próximos años? La integración multivía de los vehículos de comunicación hoy permiten desde la emisión, la interacción y la retroalimentación en segundo. Los foros de discusión, las encuestas virtuales, los videocast, los podcast, los diarios y televisiones en línea y por señal abierta y cable están integrando esfuerzos y estrategias para que sea el usuario el que tenga hoy la última palabra. ¿Estaremos viviendo un second life en nuestro consumo mediático? ¿Qué tanto esta experiencia no es una especie de Truman Show del que somos productores y espectadores a la vez? Para los amantes de las tecnologías de información estamos viviendo un momento fabuloso; la era de las multitudes inteligentes de Howard Rheingold se hace tangible y la pregunta obligada ante esta nueva fórmula de comunicación se hace presente: ¿El nuevo medio cambia las formas de cooperación? ¿En verdad estos nuevos medios cambiarán la forma en que nos vemos y vemos a los demás? ¿Qué aportarán en realidad estos vehículos de integración mediática? Esperemos que los días y no los años nos ofrezcan una respuesta. Por lo pronto les comparto un interesante post publicado por Arodb en el blog Progressive Historians: History and politics of, by, and for the people. Dicho post está fechado el día 26 de julio de 2007 y lo pueden encontrar en: http://www.progressivehistorians.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1843 Este trata sobre el nuevo amorío de Youtube y la democracia norteamericana, los debates y el futuro de la política mediatizada. ¡Salud!
YouTube debate in historical context
by: arodb
Thu Jul 26, 2007 at 11:58:44 AM EDT
( - promoted by Nonpartisan)Democracy is ultimately no better than the qualities of it's nominal sovereigns, the voters who decide on their leadership. We can measure educational level and literacy which correlate highly with stable effective participatory democracies.
The YouTube debate showed a different dimension. It was not the ability to read, or even education, rather it was an interest and desire among the electorate to delve into the complex issues that must be decided by the person who will hold office.
I will argue that this debate is a reflection of the decline of this quality, and further, that it will accelerate this decline of active, participatory engagement in actual issues. It is the despoliation of the political process.
arodb :: YouTube debate in historical context
The Daily Show devoted their entire program to ridiculing the debasement of political discourse of the debate; but I doubt that his audience will really get the message. While Jon Stewart gained stature when he attacked CNN's Crossfire program for turning serious political issues into a shouting match for the sake of audience share, he is really in the same business. His income is based on cultivating an audience, not producing better citizens.
The Daily Show, Crossfire, and all profit based mass media including popular blogs, only prosper if they have sufficient audience, either to pay for subscriptions, or bring advertisers who pay for access to this audience As such, their job is not to disturb or leave their audience with a sense of deep concern over pervasive complex issues. The task of these media is to entertain-used in the broadest sense, meaning to provide amusement, interest, even drama that ends in resolution. Entertainment has at its core the goal of leaving an audience satisfied, feeling better for experiencing the presentation.
Effective democratic government only works with informed voters. In this country it means that the people understand myriad competing interests that shape our society, and the complexity of not only our two level national federation but the place of each part of our tripartite central government. And while we are at it, lets consider local government at the city and county level, and various subdivisions such as school boards that all make decisions about how we live.
It is all too much for us. Even those who make a living working in or reporting on government, cover only a small slice of the whole. While, we cannot really independently form judgments on any but a tiny fraction of the questions that face us based on objective criteria, all humans from infancy on can judge other people. We have a sense of affinity to some and discomfort with others. It is in the smile, the warmth, making us laugh-- something ineffable but quite real. It is pre-verbal, and pre-cognitive, and is found in all other social mammalian species. Just as chimpanzees manage to select leaders without knowing anything about their ideologies or plans for dealing with the neighboring group, humans do this instinctively.
There has long been a tension between the intellect and the gut, the mind and the heart, in political life. Originally our country gave intellect the upper hand as our constitution defined a republic rather than a direct democracy. Each state would limit those who would choose their representatives based on criteria that tended to at least insure literacy.
Senators would be selected by the state legislatures, not on the shorthand of party faction, which they hoped would be avoided, choosing the most qualified, wisest man for the responsibility of shaping the country's policies. Such a senator would never even have to be known to the public.
Even the President was to be selected by electors, not necessarily promising to vote for a given candidate, rather independent respected citizens would choose whom they felt would be most suited for this powerful position. Our country at the time of the constitutional convention was so removed to what has evolved that looking back has little purpose.
But my personal frame of reference is less remote, the mid twentieth century, complete with television, phones and daily newspapers. There were only a few channels but it included an independent PBS, that featured programing that stimulated and challenged the viewers. No one asked a candidate whether he would work for minimum wage, (although Truman was working for not a lot more,) or the personal issue of how they talked to their children about sex. There was a consensus among those involved in making the selection for president that this was a serious process, and those being considered should be evaluated on their knowledge, experience and their relevant positions on the issues. (And of course their compliance with the interests of business, arms suppliers, unions, big city bosses and all of the underside of political life.)
As someone who abhors the Bush administration, I have gained a certain solace during his regime from those venues that puncture his hypocrisy on a regular basis. Dailykos.com, has been a source of pleasure, yet I now see a side to it that becomes more disturbing. Just yesterday there was a diary there that was received with universal applause, that cheered the youtube debate as marking the death of MSM, that's "Main Stream Media." I don't know whether those on Dailykos think that elimination of the kind of analysis and reporting of the "New York Times" is something that would make for a better world, or that their partisanship is so intense, that they feel they can win over the new voters from the Youtube set.
I made a short video of Obama's response to the question of Same Sex Marriage that you can see on, you guessed, youtube. He brilliantly deflected the question so it appeared that he was both for same sex marriage, and for civil unions, which is a substitute and a lesser form of same sex marriage. But he did make one bold statement, that he believes that it is up to the various religious denominations to decide what marriages they will recognize.
That was a clear unambiguous comment, that seemed forthright and meaningful, except for one minor detail. There is not now, nor has there ever been, on the state or federal level, any suggestion or proposal different from his stated belief. No one who supports SSM would require the Catholic Church to sanctify it, nor would any opponent of this take action against such, intrinsically non-meaningful, sanctification of such a union by a religious order.
And without a follow up that asked whether a church that sanctified the marriage of a thirteen year old to her older cousin should be legal, the emptiness of his statement remained unchallenged. When he finished, I noted a quick gulp, as in, " I really got away with this bull shit"
To illustrate the pernicious effect that is the thesis of this article, John Edwards got caught up in a similar obfuscation in the vice president debates of 2004 on the issue of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. He simply did not understand it. In this case the moderator, challenged him on it, and he stumbled his way out, but he did not get a pass.
But Barack Obama did get away clean, as did most of the other candidates who quickly learned how to play the youtube debate game. Meaningless answers, that sounded good no matter how politically or fiscally impossible gained points towards the goal, which was winning the debate. So, Bill Richardson said that illegal immigrants, I guess that means anyone who managed to get across the border, should be entitled to full medical treatment of whatever existing disease they have. And Kucinich would remove our troops immediately, ignoring the consensus that such a logistical project would take over a year to avoid putting our troops at greater risk. And surprise, everyone was for diplomacy rather than war.
And then there is John Edwards, ever doing battle against poverty. He asserted that only he could effectively go against the insurance companies and HMOs as he had done this very thing during his career as a plaintiff's lawyer. No one followed up by suggesting that he was actually playing a part in the existing system, in that he took the most egregious, profitable, and winnable cases, while he opposed systemic changes that would have provided more broad based compensation to injured persons.
From reading this so far, it certainly seems like I am attacking the entire slate of Democratic candidates, reasonably leading the reader to believe that I support the Republicans, that they will be more forthright, more probing and analytical in their responses. Are you kidding? Based on previous debates the Republicans have, if anything, even less dedication an unvarnished exploration of the issues.
The subject of this essay is the anti-intellectualism of this particular variation of an already defective concept of "debates" by large groups of candidates. I actually applaud Obama for mastering the medium so quickly. His delivery was adroit and well executed. I'm sure he knew that what he was saying was meaningless, especially since the federal government has no part in defining the nature of the civil unions that he espoused.
But he succeeding in deflecting a difficult question into an affirmation of something the audience agreed with. The fact that it was irrelevant to the actual question went unnoticed. This is worth points in this game show.
The line of political discourse that flowed from ancient times to their incarnation in the new world by orators such as Hamilton, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Kennedy, has about ended. It has been superseded by the strand of entertainment nurtured by the cool, (meaning no brain work required,) medium of television. This debate was from the line of quiz shows, wrestling and beauty contests. With this "debate" the descent into vacuity has accelerated by connecting with the interactive internet. Now we have a presidential election built on the values of "American Idol" where the candidates have become the contestants.
Seemingly without objection the candidates have accepted being turned into grist for attracting viewers to the ultimate reality show. Gail Collins actually had a serious column in the New York Times last week suggesting we vote off the "loser" after each debate. And why not. Their personality, their demeanor, their sense of humor is everything. Everyone in the national audience can phone in their choice, just like everyone can vote for who wins the final prize.
Entertainment and politics, which should be different spheres of activity with different goals and values, have merged- but only for a while. Soon there will be no toleration, and certainly no benefit for a candidate, in risking turning off their audience with a full expression of the complexity and challenges we face. It will be all entertainment, all charm, all creating the image of certainty in the face of danger.
I write this not in the expectation that any more than a few will read it. It is out of frustration and sadness to what I remember as the great excitement of being a part of the democratic process. From learning to read, to studying government, to engaging in politics at many levels, it has been a wonderful gift from people unknown. I have tried to keep up my side of the bargain, to be engaged and to understand the issues.
One of the candidates on display Monday could well have the fate of our country, and of the world, in his or her hands. It is our job to get the information that allows us to make the best choice. In making this decision, we are acting in the solemn capacity of citizens of a democracy, not audiences in a reality show. There is a vast difference; or at least there should be.
Entradas
