Political Mudslinging Via YouTube, MySpace

An anonymous reader writes "BusinessWeek takes a look at how political campaigns are taking the time-honored tradition of political mudslinging digital. One notable example: In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead over challenger Jim Webb until one of Webb's camera-toting aides captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop. The video soon held the number 1 ranking on YouTube and gained national attention. Allen has since taken a steep drop in the polls, and Republicans now risk losing a seat they thought secure."

Comments

Mudslinging? How?

[eldavojohn]

BusinessWeek takes a look at how political campaigns are taking the time-honored tradition of political mudslinging digital. One notable example: In the Virginia Senate race incumbent Republican George Allen held a comfortable lead over challenger Jim Webb until one of Webb's camera-toting aides captured footage of Allen making a racial slur during a campaign stop.

How is that 'mudslinging?' The definition of mudslinger is "one that uses offensive epithets and abuse/insult especially against a political opponent." I mean, if you show a video (without doctoring it) of your opponent saying "macaca" and it really happened, how are you mudslinging? I'd sure like to know if the guy I'm voting for is willing to call a group of people something offensive.

I haven't been able to see the video but if it's accompanied by some commentary like, "... George Allen's typical closed minded Republican speak ..." then I could classify this as mudslinging because not all Republicans are like this. What's truly unfortunate is that the people who were going to vote for him as a viable candidate may now have no where to turn in time for the election. Jim Webb could have all the wrong stances on issues and he might win by default for an ignorant use of a word by his opponent. Well, I guess that's American politics.

Muslinging still is rampant and there still are videos ... but when they're not lies or aren't pertinent, I'm interested in seeing them. A lot of the time, I don't believe what I see/hear unless it's verifiable or (as in this case) it's coming from the candidates mouth. It doesn't matter if it's TV, the radio, the internet or even my best friend, I'd still want verification.

2008 Elections

[twifosp]

This is really the first election where online material might have significantly moved a vote. You can bet it will be much worse in 2008.

Given that YouTube is unregulated, I bet we start seeing fake videos hit the networks. Some anonymous user posts a video of Joe Schmo canidate talking about some random topic. A bit of audio editing (think voice boards) later, some grainy artifacts in the right place, and some clever timing and suddenly Joe Schmo just got caught saying something bad. Will it matter if the politician refutes the video? Even if they prove it to be fake, the damage will probably already be done. No real account to tie the slandering back to. No one to sue, and all YouTube can do is take down the video and ban the account. Damage already done, and no real risk.

In the 50's we had the red scare. In the next election there migth be a YouTube scare.