Slashdot Mirror
The Internet, Media and Politics
Several people submitted an interesting column on Davenet about the differences in methodologies of the Dean campaign and other primary campaigns. Of course, the analogy doesn't have to be strictly Dean - it can apply to any candidate who breaks from the traditional norms of campaigning. and while I think people have been saying since 1996 that this is the year of the Internet in politics, for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way. In any case, the question of productization in politics is a very real one, and should be discussed.
Those who used to research candidates before can now hit their website and get a quick summary instead of digging through newspapers and mass mailers.
Those who never really cared, pretty much still don't care, even if all they have to do is click on a website and read.
The biggest affect has been that communication within groups of like-minded individuals has been greatly increased. Between sites like meetup.com for live meetings and email discussion lists for ongoing meetings online, if you care about an issue or set of issues, you can coordinate with others who feel the same way.
It's gotten to the point where non-internet enabled members of political organizations are starting to feel left out because they miss 90% of what goes on in their group.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
for me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way.
Not to get too off-topic here -- but I consider communicating with friends and family to be at least as important as political activism.
The coolest voice ever.
me this is the first *real* use of the Internet in a meaningful way
Well the Blair Witch Project, back in 1999 used an internet-based marketing approach to rack up 140 million dollars. Not only that, it set the standard for how movies are marketed online.
Just because this is about entertainment and art and not politics doesn't make it less real. There's a lot of money in movies.
Before everyone starts jumping up and down claiming that "productization" of politics is a bad thing-- please realize it`s been happening since the inception of the US republic: the tracts coming out of Boston (Common Sense, Federalist Papers) were all "productization" of one form or another-- the idea that you must package a message in palpable and swallowable formats for the masses to recieve and understand that message.
Poets, Priests and Politicians use words for your submission. The Internet thrives on disseminating text. It's just taken a while for the campaigns to figure out the most effective ways of doing that. Looking back, it makes sense that this would only happen _after_ the hypsters of the dot-com era faded away. Now that all the Flash intros, goofy graphics and image maps have all evaporated, the Internet is (hopefully) getting back to what it does best: disseminate text and solicit commentary. Wikipedia, Slashdot, Fark, and Google all understand this.
davejenkins.com |
Oh, and as a sort-of side note, that's the first time I've ever read Dave Winer's blog. Is his writing always that bad and his arguements that disconnected? I've been living in a non-English-speaking country for a few years, and I felt the English he used was as bad as mine is sometimes. What's his excuse?
I must agree with one point in the article, at least. The way to use the 'net in politics is to use it to the hilt, and assume that the traditional implements of power will act against you. Using it as just a nontraditional means of fundraising and then trying to spend the money with the people you just bypassed is not too bright.
Instead, go *completely* nontraditional. Don't buy into the claim that you have to spend big to win big. For very little money a candidate can now have what amounts to his own publishing empire, one that's very difficult for the entrenched interests to silence or drown out. Point out that the other guys are spending $100 million to win a job that pays $0.5 million a year, and ask if that seems fiscally responsible, or even sane. Publish *detailed analyses* instead of meaningless sound bites and vague strokes, for people who want to read 'em, and make a point of the fact that *your* thinking is always available for study while *they* seem to want to hide all their details. Dredge up the news that's important to you, and become known as a place where people can find the stuff that's kept out of the daily papers. Don't try to outspend 'em; try to out-write 'em.
Just wait until they start spamming us.
This is not funny, this is insightful in its foresight. Remember, political calls are exempt from the US national do-not-call list. The poster is correct, as politicians adapt themselves to the internet, they will adopt the marketing techniques of the environment and that includes spam.
I've finally got around to changing my sig
No, looking at a candidate's website is a good way to see what they want you to think they think is important.
0 83 5.asp
4 01 261431.asp
Take a look at John Kerry - http://www.johnkerry.com/about/
His dad was a volunteer, he was a volunteer, but he was in the wrong war! Then he went on to be a senate stud.
But that's not accurate, not really, and I think it's important to look around the web to learn what is important.
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20040122
"The publication Congressional Quarterly examined 119 recorded votes held in 2003 in which the president had taken a position. CQ found that Kerry was present for just 28 percent of those votes. In contrast, Kerry's colleague from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy, was present for 97 percent of the votes."
As for his voting for war, he voted against the First Gulf War, then voted for the Second Gulf War, but he claims he didn't really understand what power that vote was going to give the President. And in the 1990s he called for an end to the Iraqi government as it was.
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200
Speech by John Kerry, delivered on the Senate floor on Nov. 9, 1997, as recorded in the Congressional Record.
"Plainly and simply, Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to get away with his antics, or with this latest excuse for avoidance of international responsibility."
"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent -- and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."
This is just a single example and I used a single source for my rebuttals. The point of this is, if you use the canidate's sites and ther suporters and organizer's sites, you won't learn anything real about the canidate.
A popular cliche, but completely wrong. Politics is multi-dimensional; the left/right (labor/capital) axis is orthogonal to the the authoritarian/libertarian one. Facismism is authoritarian capitalism (Yes, the Nazis had "socialist" in their name, they lied, big surprise. Socialists don't supply slave labor to corporations. (Slave labor to the state, maybe.))
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Don't believe me? The news on Dean was pure shit nonsense right before the primaries. All they covered was crap like "ohhhh, he has a temper!" "oooh he's angry" "ooohhh, he looks like a groundhog!" (seriously, does anyone give a damn if he has a temper? he'd have to deal with generals and foreign leaders on a daily bassis, he'd better have a damned temper!) And then, Kerry wins the 'popular' vote for in Iowa and New Hampshire, and everyone declares Dean dead-in-the-water. Except, wait, he won more delegates than Kerry, which, in a delgate rate, put him in the lead.
People talk about how Dean isn't presidential enough, or Dean is too liberal, or whatever nonsense. The fact of the matter is that the media played those parts up at the expense of his other traits, and the Grand Ol' Internet didn't change any of that.
Fox News vs CNN This gives the news networks the appearance of political in-fighting, just like several of the democratic presidential candidates.
No exhaustive analysis to see here! Move along!
The second article quotes CBS pres Andrew Heyward, "Cable thrives on repetition and, let's be kind, exhaustive analysis, which has to constantly be freshened." Saying ANY of the news networks engage in "exhaustive analysis" is indeed charitable. They replay and replay without ever showing much success in giving context to the newsworthy items they cover. Almost any clip can be made to look wonderful or ridiculous if taken out of context.
The value of the Internet as news media is you can get the context you need to make sense of the news clips. Good print media is also useful for that, but it's often frustrating to wait for your weekly delivery of the Economist.
ANY media gains an advantage when the editors can help provide unbiased reporting AND context for the events they cover. The trick is finding editors you can trust.
Dean's principal problem was not the hostile media. The media is hostile to all candidates--after all, when was the last time you heard a Campaign talk about how happy they are with the coverage of their candidate? Dean's problem was he got stuck in a feedback loop with his base--while his base loved everything he said, the rest of the electorate didn't, and the base was all that Dean's campaign managers listened to. The internet makes it much easier to for minorities to organize and be far more vocal than in the past, but a vocal minority is still a minority. The organization capabilities of the internet made it far easier for Dean to get crowds to his speeches, which made it appear his support was far broader than it was. It used to be three hundred people at a speech early in the campaign was indicative of far greater support, but in Dean's case is simply meant that there were three hundred people in that area who supported him.
All the things about Dean that his base loved--his irreverence, his red-faced speeches, his jokes--many other voters found annoying and un-Presidential. Some of Dean's policy proposals just made him look silly (like the campaign finance reform proposal where you give $100 to a candidate, the candidate gets "matching" funds of $500 from the Federal campaign funds, and you get to take a $100 credit against your next income tax bill. Net result: $600 flows to the candidate from the Federal coffers, and you don't lose a dime). It didn't help matters that his base could literally see no wrong with their candidate. I read the Dean Campaign blogs for a while, and they were a scary place. When a campaign becomes incapable of criticizing their candidate, a bad ending is almost ensured. Dean's decline in the polls came not so much from voters deserting him, but from all of the "undecided" voters who made up their minds right before the election all choosing other candidates, mainly Kerry.
I suspect Dean's die-hard supporters will find comfort in the "media assassination" and "Democratic Establishment was scared of us" theories to explain the collapse of their candidate, the fact is in elections, there are winners and losers, and it really doesn't matter how "right" you believe your candidate is, because the other candidates also have supporters who utterly believe they're "right" as well. In the end, the winner is the person who does the best job of persuading other people to support them, not the person who may be right. Just because Democracy doesn't produce the outcome you desire does not mean it isn't working. You win some, you lose some, move on to the next battle.
Agree. I'm the original poster, and I thought I was actually being objective. Calling it as I see it.
In reality, the true old-school definition of Liberal should be applied to Newt Gingrich Republican Revolutionaries because they were trying to rock the boat and change the status quo. Old-school meaning how Liberal was defined 100 years ago.
Today, Liberalism, has been usurped by Socialists. In America, there are enough people that associate Socialists with Communists. And slowly Liberal is being connected to Socialism, which is connected to Communism. Whether this be fair or not.
Simple fact, Liberalism basically means more state control of the economy. Who disagrees with that statement?
It's no secret that several of the more liberal leaning congressmen and women are members unapologetic socialists.
I liked the article and agree with a lot of the authors sentiments, but disagree with the overall analysis for a number of reasons:
1. Dean didn't have the kind of control over his Internet presence to force it to zig or zag. You're right, Dean didn't plan on being an Internet candidate he wandered into it, or rather it wandered in to him. The pissed off Internet masses were bubbling and looking for someone relatively mainstream to throw their support behind. This was a relatively large and vocal group that looked scary, but in the end was a mutual admiration society of bloggers and activists that was going to love Dean and/or themselves no matter what Dean did. However, as much as the zealots of this group have and will always love Dean, the realists in the group realized that ultimately he is unelectable. Right or wrong, he's been painted as angry and he vocalizes for a small section of society. These realists fled the cause for a more electable (and yes mainstream) candidate, come primary day.
2. The media is dumb. You said it yourself, look at the kind of crap that's on at any given time. Just look at the coverage that Jackson's Teatgate has received. There is no media conspiracy to prop up Kerry. On the contrary, the media bubble had been so Dean focused for so long, that he was bound to disappoint. Instead of being a solid contender now, he a washout, because the media had set such high expectations of his performance.
All I have time for. Discuss.