Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Debate Reform: Online Debate Hosted by Conservative New Media
Working Prototype
The CNBC debacle may have been the straw that broke the elephant’s back. Republican campaign managers are considering holding a debate on their own terms and the RNC has cordially uninvited NBC from an upcoming debate. I am aware that Ricochet has approached the candidates in the past about hosting and was rebuffed. It should try again — now — and propose an innovative new debate format, co-hosted by two other leading conservative new media organizations in which:
- Candidates don’t appear onstage together
- There is no live audience or auditorium
- Candidates receive a question, record their answers on video (smartphone is fine) and submit their answers back to the moderator, all within 30 minutes or so per question
- The video answers are quickly assembled into a YouTube channel where they can be viewed together in order (just like a a debate on TV) or a-la-carte as individual questions, answers and rebuttals (enabling wide syndication on social media)
A few of us produced a working prototype on a YouTube channel here with placeholder stock videos in place of the candidates’ statements.
The benefits are many, including:
- Thoughtful questions from people who represent the primary voters, not NBC news.
- A civilized in-depth debate in which candidates compete on the field of ideas.
- Freedom from time limitations imposed by TV time-slots, ads and program scheduling.
- Elimination of the advertiser-friendly, reality TV nonsense such as playing to the audience and clown questions.
- A shining example of how the Republicans are the party of the people and of the future — not the whipping boys/girls for the paleo-media.
- Wide exposure and a positive impression for Ricochet and other co-sponsors.
- Best of all, it is practically free.
Here is how it would work:
- Ricochet and two other conservative media outlets (e.g., National Review, The Weekly Standard, etc.) form a debate host committee. Ideally choose three new media outlets that represent the left, right, and center of the party and movement. The combined group probably has more reach to likely primary voters than a network like CNBC.
- Each publication nominates one administrator, three questioners, and one moderator/host from their own staff, their freelancers, or even from one of the other two publications. (e.g., National Review might think that Ricochet’s Peter Robinson would be the best moderator and host … and they would be right.) The administrators set the rules and vote on all business matters. The questioners form questions and submit them to the moderator in writing. The moderator/host asks the questions and handles niceties. (See #5 below about how the questions and answers are handled very differently than previous debates.)
- The three administrators decide how many candidates and who to invite to the debate. (Again, see #5 below for why this format can accommodate a wide field.)
- Give each candidate one “blackball” card to play for questioners. If a prospective questioner gets more than (n) blackballs, he or she cannot participate.
- The debate is not a live event in the traditional sense. There is no audience to pack with supporters. Candidates are not on screen or miked up while the other is speaking. They can’t upstage the others by sighing, interrupting, or mugging for the cameras.
- Questions are emailed to the candidates at the same time. They are given five minutes to record a response and post the video to a shared YouTube channel. This channel is not (yet) open to the public, but is open to the candidates. They can see and rebut each other for another 10 minutes. Once all rebuttals are posted, the moderator assembles the responses and rebuttals in a YouTube playlist in a random (or pre-arranged, fair order) and then publishes the playlist to the world. Anyone who wants to see the entire question, all answers, and all rebuttals can do so.
- Repeat step #6 above for a reasonable number of questions.
- YouTube gets to sell advertising on all of the videos (political ads are not permitted, of course). The paleo-media (television, newspapers) can use the footage under the same agreements that they currently air clips from each other’s debates.
- Ricochet and the other sponsoring entities get branding opportunities on-screen, pre-roll and on the YouTube channel page.
- Tons of free distribution on social media
C’mon, Ricochet. Ask the candidates again — today! If we could pull this off it could provide wide exposure for Ricochet.
Published in General
I like the integration of YouTube. Though it would be nice if the debate was purely textual like a typical Ricochet conversation (and Ricochet admins should reserve that as an option), a YouTube debate would get more attention and so be more attractive to the candidates.
The process might need refinement.
I assume most of the candidates and their campaign managers are not very tech-savvy, so they would be daunted by this process of fast-paced recording and uploading.
The time constraints are also potentially problematic because the time at which you post a video is not always the time at which the uploaded video shows up. I don’t know what causes that processing delay, but it happens.
Also, is 10 minutes enough time to read every other participant’s response and post a rebuttal?
Might connection troubles be an issue?
I like the selection process and the blackball idea. Certainly, Ricochet admins should continue to pitch the idea of a Ricochet debate in some form, especially since they seem to encounter some of the candidates and campaign managers face-to-face occasionally.
Hey can this post be promoted to the mainfeed? I will email this idea to Rush and Dennis Prager (i’m a paying member for both of them) who know if they will read it BUT it can’t hurt.
Thanks for the input. I agree with you. See below.
For sure. This is a first swag at best.
True. What I tried to do is preserve some of the realtime excitement of seeing the candidates respond live while introducing a bit of time for them to think instead of just blurting something out. The precise timing of releasing the question to the candidates and cutting off responses would require some experimentation, but should be easy to optimize.
Yes. It is pretty quick for short videos when done through YouTube. Also, the moderator would not release the entire question playlist (with all answers and rebuttals) until the videos were processed. Additionally with the potential audience, YouTube would certainly provide a professional large audience setup.
On a related subject, I’m looking into a way of concatenating all of the individual videos into one live stream when they are available for a scheduled all-in-one release time (like 8pm eastern – or 8:30 if you are CNBC). While I love the granularity of the individual videos and the ability to go back and re-watch certain parts. I also think that the deconstruction of the event is intellectually interesting. However we probably need a way to let people watch with just one click. The playlists do this, but not in a traditional way.
Probably not. Probably needs to be a bit longer. Good point.
Well, since it is not live streaming, all the candidates would need is a reasonable hard-wire connection that can upload a few megs of data. Of course they should locate themselves somewhere with a good connection. On a related note – there is no reason that the candidates could not actually all go to a central place – like an office building – and do their videos in separate rooms. That would minimize the scope of the risk of the connection failing – if not the severity. At least everyone would enjoy/suffer from the same conditions.Obviously that central location would need to have redundant connections.
Always. Be. Closing.
:)
So you’re volunteering to assist Blue Yeti on the tech side of this debate, right?
It’s only a primary debate for President of the United States. No pressure.
Mr. Yeti is a technical and audio/video production wizard and a saint for keeping the Ricochet pirate ship moving full steam ahead. I am not fit to tie his nerd-sandals, but I will do anything I can to help fix this mess. I’m qualified on the software development side of things.
The Yeti is DA BOMB! That man coordinates and tidies up multiple podcasts every day, and I know he does much more. I have no idea how he does it.
I really hope that we can do this, but not for 2016. We should learn to walk before we try to run.
We missed the opportunities to host congressional and gubernatorial primary debates in 2012, while talking about wanting to do Presidential debates. We missed the gubernatorial opportunities in 2013. We failed again in 2014. We failed again in 2015.
We have the opportunity to not fail in 2016. If we host good debates for Congressional or Gubernatorial primaries this cycle, it seems like there’s every chance that we’ll get to host presidential debates in 2020 or 2024 (or, more likely, 2019 or 2023).
If you want Ricochet to succeed in this sort of stuff, talk to your state parties, to your candidates, and see if you can find someone who will help cure Ricochet of its desire to skip straight to dessert.
James: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I don’t know the history of Ricochet’s efforts on this topic and I do understand the risk of trying new things. That said, I think that there is enough time in this presidential primary cycle to get this right – even if on a smaller scale of some one-on-one debates between front-runners.
Let’s try for dessert anyway!
Hey there. I totally agree. We’ve got a post running on this topic and we have almost enough comments to get it on the home page. Would you folks mind commenting on the post so we can surface the post and get more people involved?
h/t: Dick from Brooklyn on my post
Thanks Illiniguy.
BTW- His post can be found here.
It looks like you’ve succeeded to the Main Feed.
Success! Thanks to all on the thread who commented!
“Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot. Take thou what course thou wilt.”
Illiniguy:
It looks like you’ve succeeded to the Main Feed.
Looks like it might not have been announced at the time you did your OP, but the “RNC said the debate would go forward with National Review remaining as a debate sponsor.[1]” I’m not sure that means they would be hosting, but hosting the debate would be perfect. I was thinking when I heard the news about the NBC debate cancellation, “Why couldn’t National Review host a debate?” There’s no reason, with so many people on line with broadband access. And this would even make it possible for someone from Ricochet to be on the panel of moderators.
Even if a formal debate with many candidates proved impossible for any number of reasons, I’d be surprised and disappointed if not a single candidate recognized the value of spending just a few hours on Ricochet. The candidates grant plenty of interviews to publications with smaller audiences than the major TV networks.
Ricochet offers the possibility of asynchronous conversation. A candidate can offer his thoughts, read comments, and take as much time as he needs to formulate responses to those comments. He could return to the site hours or days after the original post.
Ricochet can offer unique opportunities which I hope at least one or a few candidates can appreciate.
Sure.
I’d like to see Ricochet front and center, but why not get three of the conservative new media outlets to collaborate for just this type of event. Yes they are ultimately competitive, but there is certainly enough to be gained for all boats to rise with the exposure. (Which is not to mention the most important thing – to elevate the discourse among our candidates so that we can nominate the best standard bearer.)
I can’t help but think that some cable news television network would re-run the online debate (in whole or in part) the day after it took place online.
Okay, Christie earned back a little of my respect when he said in the debate:
I agree. The async nature of an online debate (either in a threaded discussion or via a youtube playlist or both) would improve the discussion and would be very newsworthy.
I just can’t imagine what a debate would be like if the moderators were people whose goal was to help Republican voters decide who they should vote for, as opposed to moderators whose goal is to help America elect another Democrat.
Sad, but true.
There are a few too many ideas here at once for this to get off the ground. Like JoE said, this might be biting off more than the candidates would be willing to chew.
There is a logical compromise which would still satisfy most of our wants: have an Uncommon Knowledge debate. UK is already hosted by the WSJ, so there’s your big-name media powerhouse backing the debate and providing the distribution. The format is already tested and proven, and it is different enough from traditional debates to really add value to the conversation. And most of the candidates have already sat at Peter’s wooden table, so they would know what to expect.
The format would have to be tweaked a little bit if it were to be a more traditional head-to-head debate, but those problems seem much more surmountable than trying to invent a completely untested internet format.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is one of the ideas already pitched to, and turned down by, the candidates. But perhaps if enough people here and elsewhere started clamoring for it, the idea might get new legs. And I think it’s chances of success are much greater than trying to re-invent the debate wheel from scratch.
To James’s point about learning to crawl before we walk, Ricochet has from its inception been a national site with its main focus on national politics and trends. Ricochet has a national (even international) audience.
Consequently, a debate concerning a national election is precisely where its arrangements should begin.
But a series of debates for local elections isn’t a bad idea.
Mendel – great comments. Some of mine are inline below.
Perhaps, but given their current anger at NBC – I think that the iron is hot and we should strike it now.
Fair and true. I would love to see that. I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive.
Here I part ways with you.
(1) If we don’t innovate here, the opposition will. Better that we take the initiative. Failure by our side to do so in the past has had disastrous consequences in national elections.
(2) Online video is over a decade old. This is no longer rocket science.
(3) From a viewer’s perspective it can be as simple as clicking one button or link to watch a sequential list of clips. The innovation here is largely in the debate format – in letting the candidates think about their answers and their rebuttals for a few minutes before responding on video and in isolating them from each other to prevent playing to the camera or audience. Yes, nerds like me and hyperkinetic millennials can view the clips a-la-carte and that makes us happy. We should not underestimate the importance of catering to this type of audience.
Dick, what I meant by re-inventing the wheel was not the technology, but your proposed question-and-answer format. It would be so much different than anything candidates have done in the past that they would likely be unwilling to try it for fear of looking foolish or not knowing how best to play it off. From hints here and elsewhere, the candidates (and especially their advisors) take a very conservative approach to unscripted appearances.
Adapting a pre-existing format means much less uncertainty for the candidates, especially when that format is one which most candidates have participated in before.
Agree and understand your point.
I think we should push for both – perhaps the Uncommon Knowledge format first after which the candidates and their keepers may be more open. Additionally, in this crowded field, I bet that in the wake of the CNBC nightmare some candidates stuck behind “The Donald” might be willing to be more bold. I’m also not sure that there is *more* risk of a candidate looking foolish when he or she would have a half and hour and as many “takes” to create a 30 second response video. They are presently doing *live TV* this has to be easier, right?
It would help to identify the primary goals of the Ricochet format (whatever it is), as opposed to traditional TV debates. What problems does it seek to amend or to uniquely offer?
Anything else?
3. candidates receive a question, record their answers on video (smartphone is fine) and submit their answers back to the moderator – all within 30 minutes or so per question
Great concept for (at least) 2 reasons: The viewing audience and second, Ricochet exposure.
But I may have missed something. It seems that 30 minutes provides ample opportunity for someone to feed answers, quotes, stats, etc., to the candidates, together with a bit of playing around with the video. (Then again, I very well could be behind the technology curve, here…)
Wow, Aron. I wish I had said it that succinctly and well.
I would love to see a Ricochet member be nominated to represent “us little people”, to chime in with the Big Foots maybe as a cameo . I’m not sure if Contributors can be viewed as “us little people” but if they can, I nominated Dave Carter.
It certainly would be enough time for that. However, in the current format the candidates are prepped within an inch of their lives by a team and they largely resort to regurgitating the most appropriate sound byte that they can recall. At a minimum this format would allow them to collect their thoughts, modify their set responses and look better.
Two other options: