CNN: Apparently not a girl's best friend

I've trying to figure out how I feel this story about the girl who asked Senator Clinton the final "diamonds versus pearls" question in the CNN debate. The girl, Maria Luisa, later explained that this question had been the fluffiest of the bunch she submitted, and CNN told her to ask it instead of a vetted question about Yucca Mountain.

The biggest problem, of course, is that CNN was vetting questions for the debate and then telling participants which of their questions to ask. This reduces the value added by audience participation and questioning to mere entertainment and raises questions about how much of the entire debate was scripted.

Perhaps because I have known a few 20 year old Truman finalists (and was one myself for several weeks) -- and don't know any network news executives-- I find myself most frustrated with my peer. Although she argues CNN forced her to ask the question, hypothetically she could have refused to ask at all, or asked her earlier question. Rocking the boat is really hard, and I can imagine it might be hard to think that quickly on her feet surrounded by cameras and mere feet from presidential candidates.

I made what I retrospectively think was an ill-advised and sleep deprived decision to let PBS's Gwen Ifill broadcast election coverage from our post-election party at Swarthmore in 2006. In some ways it was great-- free publicity for Swat, free food for election-watchers, and I found out one of my best friends is a natural on TV-- but the scripted nature of everything put me forever on guard. Between assembling the students they wanted for the "diverse non-partisan" panel (a struggle at a school that'll break green before it'll break red) and trying to keep an audience of exhausted and amazing volunteers "silent but enthusiastic looking" so we could make a nice backdrop for Gwen, it felt a bit like an ongoing and dishonest mess. We broke out the Andre the second the camera crews left. I got cold feet about the broadcasting as soon as they tried to make me promise to get the audience to cheer in a nonpartisan manner (not within my powers, sorry) but because it was a major news network, I was swept up enough to keep my mouth shut. It was no scripted debate, but it also wasn't the party I wanted to throw volunteers-- and I guess that eperience allows me to feel some sympathy for Maria Luisa.

Gettting swept up in the big moment aside, I don't understand why she submitted the question about diamonds versus pearls. She mentions that they were asked to submit several light-hearted questions. To be fair, this is kind of a hard category of questions for a presidential candidate (The best I can do on the spot: "how many times have you had to sit through The War Room?"-- definitely necessary to refrain from asking if George Stephanopoulos was that cute in real life...) because it shouldn't exist and is a waste of everyone's time, but I think although anything would have been better than writing "a question that quizzed the first credible female Presidential candidate on her taste in jewelry." Really expensive jewelry. ("Don't you know there's a war on?' say the tradesmen with a grin.") If she writes questions that bad, that's her fault.

Also, not going to fault Clinton for a short and funny response to a dumb question-- and this is neither the time or place for this issue-- but I do wish there was more of a progressive consensus that diamond engagement rings are not that cool.