Op-Ed Column: Impeachment Edited Out of CNN/YouTube Debate

(updated below)

Revolutionary? Breakthrough? Hardly.

Beyond the surface, a televised repackaging of YouTube’s format and technology in which “real people” – hell, even snowmen – ask real questions, Monday’s CNN/YouTube Democratic debate offered nothing substantively new.

Why? Because Anderson Cooper and CNN brass took it upon themselves to vet those real questions from real people and chose the ones they saw fit for primetime. As a consequence, one of the most popular questions (as voted on at David Colarusso's site Community Counts), one about impeachment, was left adrift in cyberspace. (John Edwards and Senator Chris Dodd did answer the question in a post-debate format via Community Counts and they should be commended. Though it would’ve been nice of them to make clear to all citizens during the debate that this question had been smothered by CNN.)

Prior to the debate, Anderson Cooper explained CNN’s decision to vet the videos themselves rather than let real people vote on which questions should be asked. Said Cooper, "You would see campaigns going out there and having all their people click on the questions that they wanted to be asked." On their screening process, he assured us, "The best stuff separates itself from the rest. It really is not a top-down process. It really is a bottom-up process."

Yeah, look at all those Democratic candidates waiting with bated breath to tackle the issue of impeachment. Yet that was one of the most popular questions outside of CNN’s walls and inside of George W. Bush’s America. This question about impeachment did separate “itself from the rest,” but it couldn’t wrench itself free from CNN’s establishment bias.

Moreover, impeachment has undeniably seeped into our mainstream culture. To couch the issue as "fringe" has, in reality, become fringe. Just a few weeks ago, a poll showed 45% of Americans favoring impeachment for Bush and 54% favoring the same for Vice President Cheney.

And it's not difficult to understand why.

Everyday Americans, just as our Founding Fathers intended, recognize that impeachment is a sensible tool to restore the Constitution - in this case, to prevent future presidents from applying and building on Bush and Cheney’s abuse of executive power, hold our current leaders accountable for breaking domestic and international law, and preclude further disastrous actions, such as an attack on Iran, before the end of the Bush administration's second term.

This is of great concern to millions of Americans who now see the writing on the wall in big bold letters: President Bush and Vice President Cheney are the most criminal White House duo in history and will not succumb to the rule of law unless forced. And even that remains to be seen. Millions of Americans also recognize how this duo’s legacy threatens to further dismantle our democracy and lead us headlong toward an irreversible totalitarianism.

Quite frankly, it’s laughable this question didn’t make the cut. A sham and a shame. It’s July 2007 and CNN is still covering this administration’s ass, further recasting the Fourth Estate as a quaint cottage tucked away comfortably on the outskirts of the castle grounds.

What made YouTube innovative and revolutionary wasn’t so much that regular people uploaded amateur videos but that regular people decided which of those videos were worthy of viewing. This inherent democratic principle was cynically and undemocratically subverted by CNN brass, turning what should have been a watershed moment in journalism and politics into a gimmicky co-opting of technology and pop culture. If Cooper and CNN feared that silly questions would be asked, you wouldn’t know from some of the questions they selected.

Rather, what they really feared was any question that might shake the status quo. In this case, the elephant in the room deserving more than any other to be broadcast around America and across the globe, to finally be given the mainstream platform it warrants, if only, given the YouTube context, for the widespread discussion it’s receiving among everyday citizens.

Instead, Cooper and CNN obfuscated their censorship by wrapping it in the Real People narrative. And who better to host this debate than Anderson Cooper? He’s made his name as The Journalist Who Cares, a leader in the ever-burgeoning Journalism of Emoting, so popular in mainstream news today, where empathy is often more important than uncovering the facts. Here’s how Cooper heralded the debate:

"You're actually kind of getting a window into people's lives. These are people who are living the topics, who are not just asking a theoretical question. There is an intimacy that you don't normally get. And I think it adds really another dimension to the debate."

Yes, it does, and did in some cases, as with the two lesbians from Brooklyn, New York, who asked the candidates if they would allow them to get married…to each other. But even at its best, as with this question, it’s a nominal added dimension. Certainly it’s an important issue to millions of Americans, but it has been asked in dozens of debates for years. The question itself was hardly groundbreaking and neither, for that matter, were the answers.

Of course it puts a human face on a question if those posing it have a personal stake. Yet, personalization aside, all such questions were little more than a repackaging of old ones made to appear new. I guess I’d rather see those two women pose a question about same-sex marriage than, say, David Brooks. At least, for example, you feel they really care about the answer. But in the end, does it have any significant impact on the outcome? Did it do anything to compel the candidates to answer differently?

Aside from the enhanced visual stimulation and less stuffy atmosphere – and there’s something to be said for that if it actually gets more Americans involved in the political process - the CNN/YouTube debate did little else than make some Americans feel their voices were heard. Yet, truthfully, the only voices heard were the ones CNN wanted us to hear.

In the end, the medium certainly was the message. Just not the medium advertised.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, the question ignored by CNN was not simply, "Are you for impeaching this president?" The full question was: "Given George W. Bush's manipulation of pre-war intelligence to enter America into the conflict in Iraq, given his spying illegally on American citizens through the NSA wiretapping program, do you believe that this president should be impeached? And further, do you believe that this is a necessary action to prevent future presidents from abusing presidential powers?"

Watch it here.

UPDATE II: Incidentally, it should be noted that in his post-debate session John Edwards summarized this question before answering it rather than playing back the full question. In his summarization, he made no mention of the second part of her question, which pertained to the use of impeachment to prevent executive branch abuses of future presidents - what many now consider the most important reason for this action. 

Comments

[MediaBloodhound]

Impeachment Edited Out of CNN/YouTube Debate

[Brendan]

The matter had already been brought up in a previous debate, hadn't it? Or was it only directed at Kucinich because of his impeachment bill?

[ed kriner]

Cause you would have seen too many Democrats deny that there is any (or ever has been any) reason to impeach Bush.

[darms]

I'm not sure if asking "do you think GW should be impeached?" is all that relevant a question at a presidential candidate debate. IMHO a more appropriate question would have been to ask them if they believe in and/or support the idea of a "unitary executive" and if the answer was no, what steps would the candidate take, as president, to roll back presidential powers and what would they do to ensure this shredding of the constitution does not happen again anytime soon?

"Candidate Edwards, if the president does it, does that mean it's not illegal?"

[MediaBloodhound]

darms, please see the update above: the full question about impeachment not only touched on holding Bush accountable for abuses of executive power, but also on how it might be useful in preventing future administrations from picking up where Bush and Cheney leave off.

[Paul Levinson]

I disagree completely. Of course the debate was imperfect - but it was still a major breakthrough, a breath of fresh air, for the democratic process... http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-youtubecnn-presidential-debate.html

[Nell]

@Brendan: Doesn't it mean anything to you that the impeachment question was the single most popular question in the pre-debate viewer evaluations of the videos?

As MB said, the impeachment question met the stated criterion of the CNN gatekeepers -- it had separated itself from the rest -- and it could and should easily have replaced a number of videos shown that were just silly (which the gatekeepers probably felt necessary to include in order to keep the medium from being taken too seriously).

[Nell]

"[Edwards] made no mention of the second part of her question, which pertained to the use of impeachment to prevent executive branch abuses of future presidents - what many now consider the most important reason for this action."

Thanks so much for this followup, MB.

This is vital to internalize -- impeachment is about restoring the Constitution and our checks-and-balance, separated-powers form of government, which has been broken by this ruling regime and its rubberstamp supporters in Congress.

It is not a partisan effort; if it were, all the candidates would be eager to answer questions about it. It's just the reverse: those consumed with electoral possibilities are the ones most reluctant to face the impeachment question. Edwards didn't leave off the second part of that question by accident.

It's not about 'emotional satisfaction' or 'justice' for Bush and Cheney; it's about making sure that no future administration can claim the dangerously expanded powers that they do now.

It's not about revenge; it's about making sure that Congress is a meaningful branch of government.

If the only remedy for lawlessness on the part of the executive branch is voting it out, then every single issue and action becomes political, and more and more lawless actions will be taken in the name of politics.

[darms]

MB, thanx for the update, as originally stated the question appears to have belonged in & probably should have stayed in the debate. But impeached or not, the "cure" for the major bushies is a date at the Hague and for the little fish, prosecution on corruption & FISA violations.