What would you ask the candidates?

HMTKSteve

I'm working on getting some interviews with the presidential candidates (both sides) to cover some tech issues. What questions would you ask the current crop of presidential candidates in regards to technology/Internet? Serious questions only please, I'm not going to ask them where the best site for porn is...

Neito

Which is more important, civil liberties or security on the internet?
Do you know what the DMCA is? Would you support changing/getting rid of it?

Apreche

How come whenever anyone asks you a question, you never give a straight answer?

Also, why do you refuse to put yourself in any situation where you will actually be forced to answer hard questions?

trogdor9

I'd go with asking them what net neutrality is.  There's a good chance they don't even know.  I once emailed a candidate for my state Senate asking him his opinions on net neutrality.  His response was essentially "You're the second person to ask about this and we can't figure out what it is.  Care to enlighten us?".

...

"Do you know what a computer is? Do you use one? Do you know what the internet is? Do you use it? Do you know what Net neutrality is? What is your opinion on Net neutrality?" That order. Just to make sure they know what they're talking about. If they answer no on any of the yes/no questions you could tell them they could potentially get votes from the people who do know those things if they researched and thus know what they're talking about.

Just make sure they know about the topic in the next question.

Also, joke poll for those candidates: "What is the internet, a) a series of tubes, or b) a big truck, or c) other (please explain)."

merry_minstrel

Avoid asking questions that are actually statements. If you ask someone to confess to either liberty or security, you don't want his opinion, but you're basically ask him to either be your ally or your enemy. If you ask something like that:

How come whenever anyone asks you a question, you never give a straight answer?

Also, why do you refuse to put yourself in any situation where you will actually be forced to answer hard questions?

you're basically telling your interviewee that he's an ass, so he will tell you to go fuck yourself (of course translated into politician language)
That's not a good interview, you want information, not a flamewar.

Pissing people off is fun, but a good interview does not primarily do that. The people who are of your opinion will say: "Well great, he told him he's an ass. I knew that before". The people who are sort of neutral or sceptical towards your point will not even read it, because it's not informative but just an argument.

1. Avoid being too polemic.
2. Try not to seem one-sided.
3. Do not try to embarass the person you interview too bluntly. Instead, ask qualified questions that show that you know your stuff. If his answer is good, he's awesome. If it's not, well, he doesn't know his stuff.
4. Ask specific opinions on things that are currently discussed publicly. An example for Germany would be "What is your opinion on biometrical data in the passport?"

I don't really know much about the US legal and political situation, so I can't think of a good question.

HungryJoe

Also, why do you refuse to put yourself in any situation where you will actually be forced to answer hard questions?

I hate it when they're asked a good question only to wriggle out of answering and the interviewer doesn't follow up. I probably would lose my job as an interviewer because I would just keep on them until I had a definite answer.

I don't really know much about the US legal and political situation, so I can't think of a good question.

If you're not living in the US right now, you're lucky.

Rym

Pissing people off is fun, but a good interview does not primarily do that.
I think his point was more to illustrate the fact that no candidate for any office in the US ever answers a direct question.  Ever.  Debates are useless exercises in futility (that hardly anyone watches anyway).  It would just take one interviewer or debate leader to grow a testicle (metaphorically speaking) to turn everything around.

merry_minstrel

If you're not living in the US right now, you're lucky.

Care to elaborate, maybe in another thread?

Pissing people off is fun, but a good interview does not primarily do that.

I think his point was more to illustrate the fact that no candidate for any office in the US ever answers a direct question.  Ever.  Debates are useless exercises in futility (that hardly anyone watches anyway).  It would just take one interviewer or debate leader to grow a testicle (metaphorically speaking) to turn everything around.

I sort of figured that, but i had to comment on that anyway, because the way many interviews go shows to me that the culture of public debate, which is vital to democracy, is in free fall. I guess I just wish for less emotion when it comes to discussions. If people would keep a cool head rather than publicly yell at each other, a lot of things could be discussed more efficiently. Also, using a polemic style excessively is just a way to cloud the fact that you're running out of arguments.
Also, journalists should differentiate more sharply between reports and comments. An interview does not exist so that the interviewer can voice his opinion, it's a platform for the interviewee.
I think I could go on quite a while about that, but that doesn't really belong here.

HungryJoe

If you're not living in the US right now, you're lucky.

Care to elaborate, maybe in another thread?

We're well on the way to facism and no one cares. If you do happen to care, people think you're crazy.

HMTKSteve

The problem with interviews is that if you ask tough questions and force the issue you do not get access to the candidates. Just look at how the Democrat candidates have banded together to boycott any and all debates hosted by FOX News. Even though FOX News has become the National Enquirer of Cable News they still have a large audience and by boycotting them you send the message that because the network will not play nice with you you will not play with them.

So yes, the political discourse and debate in the USA is in free fall because no one has enough testicular fortitude to risk their access to the candidates to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. Those who do have the testicular fortitude can not get anywhere near the candidates!

Without access there can be no Republic.

Apreche

So yes, the political discourse and debate in the USA is in free fall because no one has enough testicular fortitude to risk their access to the candidates to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. Those who do have the testicular fortitude can not get anywhere near the candidates!

It's not just testicular fortitude of the networks, it's testicular fortitude of everybody. Candidates don't have the balls to go on the shows that ask the hard questions. The networks could just as easily band together and say they won't give the candidates any coverage unless they let them ask whatever questions they want. And congresspeople, being candidates themselves, will not make laws that require candidates to face tough questions. Everyone' s a wuss. The first non wuss that rises up, and isn't also batshit crazy, is going to get my vote.