<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GOP YouTube Debate Moves a Step Closer to Reality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robertbluey.com/blog/2007/08/07/gop-youtube-debate-moves-a-step-closer-to-reality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robertbluey.com/blog/2007/08/07/gop-youtube-debate-moves-a-step-closer-to-reality/</link>
	<description>Conservative blogger and journalist with a passion for politics, sports and family</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:39:19 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PaulC</title>
		<link>http://robertbluey.com/blog/2007/08/07/gop-youtube-debate-moves-a-step-closer-to-reality/comment-page-1/#comment-986</link>
		<dc:creator>PaulC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertbluey.com/blog/2007/08/07/gop-youtube-debate-moves-a-step-closer-to-reality/#comment-986</guid>
		<description>I find it hard to believe that it took not only the advent of the Internet, but the soaring popularity of online video and user-generated content to have a debate where questions are legitimately posed to candidates from the public. (Although, still heavily filtered through the media.)

Regardless of party affiliation, it&#039;s gimmicky and a blatant attempt to just grab ratings. At best, it generates interest in the electoral process. At worst, meaning is lost in the gimmick, and the media manipulates content to either tug at heart strings or send a subtle message. Campaign managers manipulate their candidates and messages even further to &#039;cash in&#039; on the medium.

One could feasibly point to Bill Clinton&#039;s appearance on MTV in the 90&#039;s, but despite some of the candid and casual questions, compared to the last YouTube debate, it was chock full of substance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it hard to believe that it took not only the advent of the Internet, but the soaring popularity of online video and user-generated content to have a debate where questions are legitimately posed to candidates from the public. (Although, still heavily filtered through the media.)</p>
<p>Regardless of party affiliation, it&#8217;s gimmicky and a blatant attempt to just grab ratings. At best, it generates interest in the electoral process. At worst, meaning is lost in the gimmick, and the media manipulates content to either tug at heart strings or send a subtle message. Campaign managers manipulate their candidates and messages even further to &#8216;cash in&#8217; on the medium.</p>
<p>One could feasibly point to Bill Clinton&#8217;s appearance on MTV in the 90&#8217;s, but despite some of the candid and casual questions, compared to the last YouTube debate, it was chock full of substance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
