tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5378628809250211427.post7621190524278810023..comments2023-04-14T06:22:39.957-04:00Comments on Talk Monkey - Renewing Political Debate: New York Times takes a tip from YouTubedrdwalkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17299831256602419261noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5378628809250211427.post-66292765306859515552007-10-26T11:07:00.000-04:002007-10-26T11:07:00.000-04:00I have to agree with what you said at the bottom o...I have to agree with what you said at the bottom of your post, this could easily lead to more close-mindedness in our society. We are already lacking any real debate in our society and by adding a system such as this, where one does not even have to watch the full debate or listen to other opinions will further the demise of the little actual debate that is left. So, although it is an advantage that one can now read or watch debates without being present, we may want to consider the detrimental effects something like this could have on our society, especially when we are already so lacking in political debate.Bonzo Goes To Bitburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08088548777885811465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5378628809250211427.post-34852668956050550742007-10-26T01:50:00.000-04:002007-10-26T01:50:00.000-04:00Wow. That's some good detective work. The New York...Wow. That's some good detective work. The New York Times streaming interactive video is an incredible tool! While it's not the same quality as YouTube (it's constantly rebuffering, causing it to skip every 2 seconds), it has its advantages over YouTube. The interaction options were incredible! And I think you're right.. this is the future of debate. <BR/>But like you asked, is that a good thing, or not? With so much interaction a viewer can really specify exactly what he or she wants to see. No longer does one have to sit through an hour of the candidates talking about themselves - the "chapters," if you will, allow a reader to skip ahead to the sections he or she wants to see. <BR/>Your skepticism is justified, in that such interactivity will probably cause even LESS attention being given to less popular candidates. <BR/><BR/>THAT brings up an interesting point... <BR/><BR/>From what I've seen the New York Times interactive video was one of the best set-ups. The debate itself was also exactly what we have been advocating for in our Dissident Media class..actually with this very blog! <BR/>The structure of last Sunday's debate went So: the moderator would ask a candidate to compare himself to another candidate based on a certain issue, OR the moderator would ask a candidate to compare another candidate to HIMSELF. That's a good way to mix up the debate recipe... <BR/><BR/>But. What if such interaction isn't increasing the debatosphere, like we're hoping it will, what if isn't attracting new viewers, new voters, or just a new image to the long-broken debate structure? What then? Has our entire blogging experience been in vain? <BR/><BR/>The New York Times video you found (again, kudos) exemplifies a lot of what we're trying to promote in this blog. And I really enjoyed watching the video. I found it unbelievably convenient to be able to watch only ten minutes of the debate, and select (!) the issues I wanted to see debated!! i LOVE technology! <BR/><BR/>But the question we need to be asking now is... <BR/><BR/>Is the ability to be able to screen out an opposing candidate's views desirable? Should we be able to increase our closed-mindedness? <BR/>Maybe that's not what we're doing. After all, I'm a liberal and I enjoyed watching Giuliani duke it out with Thompson.Chr1sAUhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05368287146920572237noreply@blogger.com