We asked readers to tweet their questions using the hashtag #unasked – but did CNN take us up on our suggestions?
The press doesn't know what it's doing. I mean that literally. Journalists ask their questions, do their stories and move on. They rarely know what it all adds up to. And they're too busy to go back and check.
So we checked. The Guardian and NYU's Studio 20 program looked at all 839 questions journalists had asked at all the influential debates among the Republican candidates for president, save for the last debate on February 22.
Two questions were about climate change. Two were asked about Occupy Wall Street. Four made any reference to the Arab spring. Twelve were about education. If you wanted to know about abortion and gay rights, the candidates were asked about those things 46 times, or 5% of the total.
This was part of our Citizens Agenda project, where the goal is to let the users of campaign coverage influence the editorial priorities of Guardian US. A good first step, we thought, was to find out what those priorities have been during the Republican debates, which have been quite influential in this election season.
On February 16 we released the results on the Guardian and began our follow-up campaign. It had five parts. First, we asked other journalists to examine the study and report on it. With our eyes on the next debate, on February 22, we called on readers to tweet or post the questions they thought had gone missing, using the hashtag #unasked. We also partnered with other sites that shared our goals and could generate unasked questions from within their own communities. We tried to get through to the debate host CNN to make sure they had read the study and took it into account in preparing for the next debate. And the Guardian US built an interactive debate feature that let readers easily sort questions by topic and moderator. Readers could also register their votes for topics deserving of more questions.
A few highlights from this "open" work:
• One of our most important findings was that the debates have been serious. Only 1% of the questions could we fairly classify as "fluff." When asked to contribute questions, Guardian US users stuck to this pattern. For example:
"In your view, what use is torture (or its euphemistic analogy, enhanced interrogation) against suspected terrorists?"
"If you believe torture is ever justified, why not use it on domestic suspects without charge as well?"
"What specific characteristics, if any, in your opinion, qualify uncharged suspects for torture?"
"What assurances would you require that an uncharged suspect meet YOUR criteria for torture?"
Not only are those questions serious, they are as good as any that got asked during the debates.
• We also found that the debate moderators were more likely to grill a candidate on what he or she has said – and not on what they have specifically done or achieved. How this pattern affects candidates' presidential prospects and reputations is a fascinating – and potentially very troubling – question for later review.
• The Washington Post's media blogger, Erik Wemple, said the study was "something that the 2012 media-political commentariat has needed ever since the debate tally reached the teens." (Why? I just told you: the press doesn't know what it's doing!) Wemple thought the most shameful revelation was that "strategy and maneuvering among the candidates" was the fourth most common type of question.
Right. It's a good example of where the press agenda and the citizens agenda diverge.
Andrew Rasiej, co-founder of techpresident.com, came forward with his #unasked questions:
1) Do voters have a right to know what data candidates and political parties are collecting on them and what happens to this data after the election?
2) Should American companies be free to sell surveillance and internet technologies globally even to totalitarian or non-democratic regimes?
3) How should America increase low cost access to high-speed broadband in order to all Americans to effectively compete in the 21st century internet economy?
All remain #unasked. John King, the host of the February 22, 2012 debate, did not ask any questions about technology.
• Grist.org, an environmental site, agreed to partner with us. ("Help us come up with debate questions that don't suck.") Their framing:
20 Number of Republican presidential primary debates held over the past year
839 Number of unique questions asked at those debates
109 Number of questions about "how conservative" candidates are
3 Number of questions about the Keystone XL pipeline
2 Number of questions about climate change
1 Number of questions about pizza crust
In the comments section, a Grist reader outlined a sophisticated approach for asking pro-business Republicans about environmentalism.
Too many "environmental" questions are from the "should" perspective. We "should" save trees, we "should" do this or that. Well-managed sustainable business tackles these problems from the profit side.
Read the rest. It's smart.
• San Feist, Washington bureau chief of CNN and the producer of the February 22 debate, was asked about our study by a reporter from the Huffington Post. He said he found it "interesting and valuable." He also took issue with how we classified 'campaign strategy' questions. So we know we got through to CNN. But, alas, we could not detect any influence on the debate. Laura Edwins, reporting for Studio 20 on the February 22 debate, wrote, "… last night continued the pattern. Of the 24 questions asked, three were about the economy, three dealt with the candidates' records and 10 could be classified as dealing with either foreign policy or national security."
CNN producers had solicited questions from Twitter using their own hashtag, #CNNdebate, but did not use any. We know from a CNN producer they were watching the #unasked tag, but again did not use anything from it. We also know that the moderator, John King, stuck to the formula set by previous debates. He did not take the opportunity to ask about campaign finance or Super Pacs, even though many Americans have expressed concern about this issue and only four questions have been asked on this topic over 20 debates. The most revealing thing Feist said to the Huffington Post: "We believe that Republican debates are for Republican voters."
Raise your hand if you disagree! I do. The debates are "open" politics. They are watched by all voters. They feature candidates for president of the entire United States, not the Republican portion.
But even if you disagree with me, there seems to be consensus among Republican voters that the debates haven't been exhaustive enough. In The Daily Caller today is an op-ed from an American Enterprise Institute scholar pointing out that the candidates did not get adequately grilled on the constitution.
Republican or not, the fixed focus of the more than 20 debates makes little sense from a citizen's perspective.
• After the February 22 debate I remarked in a tweet about a certain narrowness. "Number of questions tonight about science: zero. Technology: zero. Climate change: zero. Small businesses: zero." That was re-tweeted more than 500 times, which is a record for me.
• Media critic Philip Bump took note of one our key findings: "Who's the most conservative of all?" was a preoccupation of debate moderators but citizens, when given the microphone, never asked about that.
If the (well-vetted and moderator-okayed) audience members aren't interested in that question, who is? Is it what the candidates want to talk about? The party? Or is it the media?
Debates aren't driven by meeting voter concerns. The contests are part of the amusing pageantry of a process that's led by top-tier decision-makers.
Which is exactly the point of the Citizens Agenda project.
• Early indications from the interactive feature are that Guardian readers would prefer a greater focus on health care, Super Pacs (political action committees that permit unlimited amounts of money to flow into the campaign) and science and technology questions. The Guardian US plans to focus more attention on Super Pacs.
That's the Citizens Agenda concept in action.