Problems with Hack the Debate.

I wasnt talking about the ppl on here.. I was Referring to the Debate and how both sides acted like School kids and pointed the finger at each other more than they really answered questions.

I didn't know Hack The Debate was mandatory...

I like the Hack the Debate format. It is called 'Hack' the debate after all. I don't think it is the place for intelligent analysis or discussion. I think it's a great place for people to make inane remarks about the politicians. I wouldn't change anything. If you want serious discussion, there is probably another format that is better suited to it.

Honestly I think they both need to quit pointing the finger at each other and Dancing around the questions.. Just answer The questions and stop acting like Children in trouble. I am thinking 3rd party looks better!

This has bothered me for years. In fact I think the talking heads who come on immediately after anything to tell you what you heard...have done great harm.
It's like someone who narrates while you eat. You know what it tastes like but they sit there and tell you how it looks and how it must taste and they always ruin your meal.

Thanks for a a very thoughtful post which I am sure is shared by many people.

On the other hand there is a large family out there of folks who love to argue and need someone to tell them what they heard and if they should think if's a good thing or a bad thing.
It's as if they are calling the Kentucky Derby or a basketball game. Or better yet why not bring in Simon Cowell or Paula Abdul? I wonder if Lincoln and Douglass had the 1860s versions of these characters pattering away. I guess that's what soapboxes were for. Private Ibber

I agree with the suggestion that we must listen, and THEN comment. Or tweet. Or whatever you call it. When I attempted to watch the debates with the tweets, it was difficult for me to really process what each candidate was saying.

I enjoy paying attention to the nuances that are a window into the character of each candidate, and the tweets did distract me enough to change the channel.

I also enjoy forming my own opinions, and I fear that watching tweets during the debate is another way in which people can too easily avoid having to think for themselves and form their own opinions.

The effect they had when the words were disappearing lasted too long and it came up too high on the screen. That's my only complain.

I wasn't aware of Hack the Debate until i came to catch up on what's going on here... That being said, I hope the majority of my Tweets weren't broadcast but I have a feeling they were being pulled based on keywords that I most likely used.
I was watching the debate in a bar, Tweeting from my phone for the sake of logging my own reactions (and providing fun commentary for a friend that was stuck at work unable to watch).
I found CBS' Ohio voter meter to be distracting, I can't imagine having thousands of Tweets scrolling across the bottom. I fully agree with Pakazak that the Infomania crew should come up with some sort of highlight reel or commentary shortly after the debate that's based on Tweets.
That way Tweets like this can be excluded (or possibly saved for a best of non-serious comments portion):
"Condescending laugh drink! God and heaven, drink! Kids, drink! Palin's kids, drink! My God... We're drunk. Oh! Insulting the mod, drink!"

For much of the debate, the candidates are just rehearsing their stump speeches. Thus, if one really follows politics, the debate is of moderate interest for the interaction only. Mostly, the candidates are just introducing themselves to newbies/undecideds.

There are a few opportunities to observe the interaction and body language between candidates, but alas this also is an activity for geeks. If the low level commentary isn't your thing CSPAN and PBS do a great job on the still shots.

I am a theorist and love arguments, but I think the point of watching Current TV during the debate is to watch the twitters versus the debate. From my limited view hack the debate is a debased forum for political commentary, but isn't that the point?

The mediation of the debate by senseless commentary may actually reflect the views of more than those who twitter. It's good know what Americans hear when they watch these events. If you're a political geek, you know all of these standard, non-surprising positions the candidates spew already. Nevertheless, you still don't know how it sounds to the average person, especially the average young hipster who watches current TV. Hack the debate opens a thought window for everyone to see what people really think and there's some value in that too, right?!?!

Just my two cents...

First of all, I'd like to compliment you all on the constructive criticism and avoiding the juvenile "HTD is stupid" comments. Without the viewpoint of our audience, we're just talking to ourselves.

I agree that there are pros and cons to showing the debate in the Hack the Debate form. Here is my, sure to be controversial, response.

- If you really, truly want to focus on what's being said, don't watch the debate, but listen to it. That will give a much more raw understanding of what's being said.

- I'm glad to see people participating, if only on the Twitter level, in the political debates. Yes, not all the responses contain meaningful content and commentary, but it means people are paying attention to the political process on some level. Just getting people to feel they have even a small voice in the process can be tough. I think of it as a stepping stone. If someone is under the voting age, but commenting on a political debate, once they turn 18 they will be more likely to continue by volunteering, talking and, most importantly, voting. If the teeter is already of voting age, they are probably going to remain more engaged and informed.

I'm not going to say Hack the Debate is going to appeal to everyone. I, personally, find it entertaining and informative, but it has its lesser moments. Dissent is appreciated as it gives us perspective. Applause is appreciated, too, when deserved.

Joe Biden's 14 Lies

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

I watched it for a little while. Before a word was uttered the screen was flooded with and continued to be flooded with only and all were derogatory liberal statements about Sarah.
Or some praises about Biden (that was fine).

Personally the things they were saying struck me as petty and it was offensive, BUT WORSE it was hard to pay attention to THE DEBATE ITSELF.

I clicked back and forth. Each time, it was a liberal petri dish, they were feasting on sarah like a pack of wolves.

I thought current was above that.
Seriously.

I enjoyed Sarah in the debate. She did kinda do her own thing. I think she was entitled to a bit as the woman asking the questions as a book with about Obama coming out on the day the president is put into office, so really.
And Biden, he looked great, but he lied his ass of.

(cont)

yeah it was distracting for the palin v biden debate

but it was the only entertaining thing about the obama v mcain one

Hey des10 -- thanks for writing such a thoughtful note! I worked on Hack the Debate here at Current, and I really appreciate that you took the time to give feedback, especially critical feedback.

I actually share many of your frustrations w/ the broadcast, but I think where we differ is that I'm glad we're doing this experiment so we can *see* what works and what doesn't, what's useful and what's not, and then improve it over time.

If we were only showing the raw debate feed, just like everybody else, a) there wouldn't be any reason to watch Current and not, say, C-SPAN, and b) we wouldn't learn anything new.

If you're not a little bit frustrated, it's probably a sign you're not inventing anything new :-)

So I'd pose it as a challenge: How might we *change* Hack the Debate to support smarter commentary? How could we adjust the way the text looks on-screen to make it less annoying and more distracting? What could we do to raise the level of discourse?

Give it some thought. I'm working on the next two debates starting *right now* so this is time for ideas.

Thanks again for the smart analysis -- and thanks to everyone in this thread for chiming in as well.

I got bored of watching and changed the channel, so i could see hack the debate. Guess what the first tweet i saw was? "Joe Biden is sexxy" Really? Huh....Now, i had proof that some people are fame whores. They just wanted to see themselves.

Also PBS have straight coverage . I think that hack the vote should be an aftershow, and not during the show.

You can have connor and the other "Infomania Crew" do the show. There is a better way to do the show.

HEAR, HEAR NAJ. you have hit it on the head. CSPAN gives you zero BS and all the debate.

I think they should show the debates normally first, and then have a hack the debate type show afterwords.

That way people have time to listen and formulate and descent response when it gets aired again.

I do agree that trying to comment, read comments, watch and listen is taking us to the level of the "sound bite" mentality, when what is needed is more substance.

To add my two cents on debate; I don't feel anything is doing more harm than the fact that we are being denied inclusive coverage debates. That mean, all of the candidates should be included.

Now you must think that I support one of the other third party candidates, and that is why I making this comment. Well, that is not my motivation here, what bothers me is how we are getting filtered choices.

Knowledge is Power!

This is true, though blogger commentary is 1000 times better than network news commentary, but its still opinion.

CSPAN is the best way to get it raw.