Them real journamalists have really been shining at the NYT in recent years, haven't they?

The YouTubers did very well, of course, compared to Chris Mathews the bar wasn't set very high.

The Daily Show pretty much reiterated your point Joan (although Stewart didn't find the candidate's answers as substantial as you). They did however have a very funny bit with Jason Jones. He shows a hayseed "shmo" on youtube asking a stupid question. As the "expert" journalist Jones proclaims: "We report, you(pointing to the audience)...shut the @$*& up! OLD MEDIA RULES!"

Funny stuff, might be good for video dog(?)

I was a participant on several of their forums. The control they tried to exert over them was ridiculous. It actually got to the point where the only movie comments acceptable were posts related to current Times reviews, explaining why the posters agreed or disagreed with the Times critic. Posts were deleted that did not conform. Things like this happened all over the board, and of course now they are gone. The Times insists on Olympian control. Futile, in this day and age.

The cynical reaction in the media is no surprise nor is it limited to old media, just read today's Slate article on the debate. People are very jaded. What I found satisfying about the debate (to use the word in its bastardized form - maybe roundtable pop quiz would be a better term) was that you could see the real people behind the issues that were being raised. Actual sick people asking about health care, whatta ya know? And you could see how open the candidates were in their reactions.

Where the event fell short for me was just in giving too many candidates too little time to really say anything substantial. I think some of the youtube questions even took longer to ask than candidates were given to respond.

They don't just use sound bites because they like them, they use them because they have so little time to answer questions, they know they have to "get their message out". I've figured out from watching TV talk shows that if I'm ever interviewed about anything, on camera, I'd better say exactly what I want to say in the first five seconds, because I'm going to be interrupted or edited for time. That's how TV goes.

and in defense of Judith Miller (back when she was in prison)? His basic thesis: only trained journalists are capable of handling the big issues and understanding what is really important. Why? Because we are experienced and, did I mention, trained? The new media is pulling away the wizard's curtain, ain't it Joan? And by the way, did you go somewhere? I hadn't noticed.

Here's the link to the letters responding to O'Hehir's defense of Judith Miller. Couldn't find the link to his actual apologea.

http://archive.salon.com/opinion/letters/2005/07/13/ohehir_on_miller/index1.html

The questions were fine, but the short answer format didn't allow for any real depth of answers -- just sound bites. One gets the idea that Biden, Edwards, Hillary, and to a lesser degree Obama have a lot of policy detail and substance beneath the sound bites. But you never get to that level with an one or two minute answer. Conversely, I think that a deeper focus would expose Kucinich, Dodd, and Richardson (perhaps) to be lighter on substance than they appear. Gravel, by definition can't be any more light weight than he appears, can he?

Can people stop calling Mike Gravel the "angry uncle" and other such names? Seriously it doesn't help the discourse in this country and if they actually gave him some time to talk at the debates then maybe he wouldn't seem so angry all the time. He has passion and is angry about the direction that this country has taken. He brings interesting ideas to the table and has a lot to say. Let him talk!

What's clear is that Times editors rarely miss an opportunity to show their fear of new media and to reassure themselves the world will always need "journalists" to get the truth.

So are you saying that I *DON'T* need the LA Times to find out how those federal judges plan to enforce this advertised mandatory cap on our state prison population?

I didn't think Salon had the resources to cover that story.

But if you're going to prove that I don't need real journalists to get the truth, then you'd better assign someone to cover that story right away.

Before you get scooped by the LA TImes.

Yeah, I think it's funny how Big Media have reacted to the Internet over the years -- ignoring it, deriding it, ridiculing it, questioning its validity and integrity (setting themselves up as the paragons, of course). And now, what, maybe fear?

I'm pretty mad that Big Media (the Bush Enablers) have jumped on this tidbit, tried to give it legs...

Plus, they even made news that's still being debated today, with Barack Obama pledging to meet with our enemies while Clinton kept a "presidential" distance from them,

The whole Obama-is-naive angle, what a crock. To hear Clinton say she'd not talk to those leaders is exactly as Obama characterized it -- a very Bushian move on her part. He's offering a return to actual diplomacy, and Big Media is having none of it, working that story.

Never mind that Bushian "we are the world" politics have dragged American international credibility into the gutter -- the real story should be that Clinton wants to stay that course, instead of deriding Obama for recognizing that it's not working, and for our need to change it.

The Big Media kingmakers make me sick, so I'm glad the Internet is making them nervous.

The YouTube-CNN format was a good addition to our national attempt to get at what each candidate really offers. I think all of us are just trying to snap the candidates into "real" responses that go beyond their "messages." The citizen video format contributed some to that end.

The fact is that we need all of it--seasoned journalists, new ones, all of us. Here is who we're still missing: the huge segment of this country that doesn't have a computer or access to one, that can't afford high-speed internet (required for functions like YouTube). For those folks, candidates like John Edwards with his focus on the two Americas, is still asking and answering the questions on the issues that pertain to lives below, on or just above the poverty line, the working poor, the homeless.

The minimum wage question and the mini-debate onstage regarding it were perhaps a glimpse into how far the "haves" are from the "have nots." It took Barak Obama to remind everyone (though he addressed Chris Dodd) that all the candidates have plenty compared to those who attempt to live on a minimum wage (and probably three jobs).

So, as I write this, I'm reminded that "their" issues are "our" issues. The YouTube-CNN production (and it was that) gave another segment of the population a chance to ask questions; that's true. But what about our disadvantaged populations? Those of us who are more fortunate MUST get aware of what they are going through and what they need and we must ask the questions they cannot. And now there is a nouveau poor element--wounded, damaged veterans of the "wars" in Iraq and Afganistan who are abandoned by this country to try to figure out their lives from here on out. Many of them are now in the mix of homeless on our streets.

So there's a job for you, New York Times! Don't worry. There are plenty of folks who couldn't make a video. Go! But don't come back until you've got some good meaty interview questions, editorials and articles that address their issues.

Joan, welcome back!