Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Internet takes away vital aspect of debate

Christian Ochoa 
Opinion Columnist

The 2004 presidential race saw the rise of the importance of the Internet, Web loggers and knowledge of when not to yell like a madman in front of crowd. And while some of the lessons on the importance of technology and the Internet have bled into the 2008 race for the White House, candidates and bloggers have gone too far with the idea of online debates being tossed around. 

In a joint effort by political blog Huffington Post, Internet giant Yahoo and online magazine Slate, political debates among Democratic candidates, and a separate one for Republican contenders, will take place sometime after Labor Day this year, The Associated Press reported. Voters can watch real-time blogging and submit their own opinions on the candidates' stance on issues. 

"It was clear to me, the 2008 campaign was going to be dominated by what's happening online -- new technologies, new media like never before," said Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post. 

And while the idea of adapting to the ever-changing technology that's in everyone's lives seems good, to limit debates among possible presidential contenders to just the Internet seems ludicrous, not to mention it could foster laziness among candidates. 

Instead of being in a live venue in front of a crowd, candidates can take advantage of the Internet's power and debate each other from different corners of the country. And the political junkies, or concerned citizens, can view only online. 

The last time a major avenue change occurred for presidential debates was the Nixon-Kennedy debate in 1960. It's a common lesson in American history and political science to talk about this debate: Viewers who saw the debate agreed that Kennedy won; those who listened thought Nixon was the victor. Whatever the reasoning might be behind it, public appearance made a bigger impact on the presidential race. 

Part of the charm that debates over higher office have -- whether Lincoln-Douglas debates or more contemporary face-offs -- is the fact that people are able to see the body language and interaction among the contenders. Certain things are fleshed out more in the public square, in front of crowd that a video camera, a photograph or even a personal interaction can't deliver. 

A candidate has the possibility of turning off voters if he or she seems cold, distant and, quite frankly, a bit creepy or evil. On the other hand, a tanned, vivacious one can reel in new voters. Putting the debates online would probably skew perceptions and interactions among the candidates. The possibility of some of the candidates getting some extra help, or being fed answers, could arise.

There's something comforting in having the possibility of seeing a candidate in the flesh, seeing the flaws and cracks in their armor. It will be too late to see those flaws if a candidate jumps from one screen to another when he or she is president. 

Ochoa, a creative writing junior, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu