Rocking the vote, manipulating the discussion

CNN's manipulation of "Rock the Vote," the Democratic presidential candidate debate televised last Tuesday, was disappointing and unfair. Worst of all, it was not journalism.

Several Tufts alumni and students were present at the forum and many came back disillusioned, reporting that CNN had stringently controlled which questions were posed. Attendees were asked to submit questions in advance and producers selected which students would ask which questions on air. While this is not the ideal way of conducting a town meeting-style event, it is understandable for a television program, and at least participants asked their own questions. But the network's decision to plant questions in the audience was highly unethical. The role of the media -- particularly when covering a debate -- is to report the news, not create it by setting the agenda.

CNN admitted it had gone "too far" in response to the revelation made by Alexandra Trustman, a student at Brown University who said she had been forced to ask a question she had not authored. But not all forum attendees allowed themselves to be co-opted: former President of the Tufts Democrats Greg Propper (LA '01) refused to go along with CNN's nefarious plot. When instructed to ask a suggested "lighthearted" question, Propper accepted, but at the moment of truth asked an important policy question on AmeriCorps instead.

It seems that CNN decided to add frivolous questions to the program in an attempt to retain viewer interest. Producers were presumably working on the assumption that young viewers need to be enticed with humor to watch a discussion about politics. In turn, they perpetuated an incorrect and unfair stereotype that young American voters are interested in non-issues -- in the case of Trustman's question, candidates' choice of operating system.

Unfortunately, the few substantive questions that audience members asked were universally answered with predictable establishment double-speak. Perhaps if all of the questions asked had been policy-related, then the audience in Boston and television viewers across the nation might have had a chance to hear serious, substantive answers.

This incident is indicative of a larger problem: US television broadcasts often do not reflect the reality of life in America. Broadcast media outlets have become slaves to ratings and advertising revenue, and as a result produce content that appeals to the lowest common denominator, regardless of its truthfulness or value.

As the future leaders of this country, our generation needs to begin fighting back against the broadcast fictions passed off as news or reality. Actions taken by Trustman and Propper are just the beginning.