I find it interesting how quickly YouTube has gained legitimacy in society. I find evidence for it in the fact that the most popular debates this election season have been co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube. Questions are no longer written by faceless writers backstage and read by news anchors, but we submitted by American citizens. Most are filmed with a monitor-mounted webcam, and have a feel very similar to any other confessional YouTube video diary post.
What does it mean when media technology which was previously viewed as illegitimate due to the people’s control over it (YouTube, blogs, Wikipedia) suddenly gains legitimacy, and even gains a interactive role was mainstream corporate media? It seems to me that this represents a growing attractiveness of the people taking control over their media, or at least the appearance of this control. An added consequence of putting the control partially in the hands of the people is that the tone of the debate did indeed change from the serious tone of the past, most famously exemplified by a video narrated by a stop-action animation snowman asking about climate change. Some candidates did not approve of this change, however. Mitt Romney initially refused to participate in the debate, saying, “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” Romney himself, however, is apparently not an opponent of YouTube in general, having posted 283 videos on his own YouTube site at the time, more than any other candidate. Romney ultimately decided to participate, and it could be argued that YouTube has now inherited some of the legitimacy held by CNN as the host of the presidential debates.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/12/the_gop_youtube_debate_is_back_1.html#more?hpid=topnews