Running for president today seems to be more difficult than ever before. Not because of fundraising or anything like that, but because of the advent of the internet, and specifically Youtube.com. Think about the effect youtube had on Howard Dean’s presidential run (http://youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc). He was one of the leading democratic candidates, but then he got fired up… Recently, former Republican Senator of Virginia, Jim Webb, was hit with a media blitz after using the word “macaca” as an ethnic slur (http://youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI). He ended up losing his seat in the senate in the 2006 gubernatorial elections to his democratic opponent by only 1% of the vote. Surely youtube played a part in that. And most recently Hillary Clinton made her “evil and bad men comment” which was quickly posted on youtube and became a media frenzy for several days (http://youtube.com/watch?v=g3Rf1ZUdUnE).
But, as this article mentions (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/columnists/chi-0702010441feb02,1,4297825.column?coll=chi-technologyreviews-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true) candidates can find good uses for the Internet. I wonder is the Internet a good thing for candidates or a bad thing?
5 comments:
I think there are different aspects to consider if the Internet is really a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is definitely a less formal way of communication. However, it is also a good way to facilitate people to retrieve media on candidates that they may need to refresh their ideas about. I have a big trust issue with the Internet no matter what, even if clips and content come from a seemingly secure and official website... I am always still skeptical. To make decisions and gain more information I usually always refer to print media in the end, it just seems more formal and real to me. The Internet is a great tool for candidates to use to communicate, but it is definitely not something people should get used to relying on.
I think the internet has both its negative and positive effects for politicians trying to get elected. And while it is still too early to see just how much the internet will end up affecting this 2008 campaign, one thing is clear; the Internet and You Tube has completely changed the way politicians run and we will never go back. Ever since JFK, getting elected in this country has been all about image. And with the internet, camera phones, and You Tube, every single thing candidates do and say is being scrutinized. While this was true even before internet and You Tube, it wasn’t to this extent. Since it is now being recorded, (instead of just written about or talked about,) we are able to view it over and over and over. And that is what I think is the biggest difference and the most negative thing that the Internet brings to political campaigns. The content shown on You Tube is mostly the negative, or the embarrassing things the politicians say or do because that is what we, as a culture, are obsessed with. So any little thing politicians say or do, like Howard Dean's scream, will be scrutinized and turned into a joke. After that, it is hard for a candidate to recover. But my biggest problem with that is, does that scream really give a tell tale sign of Dean as a political leader? In my opinion, it does not, yet he will forever be remembered for that, and the You Tube video will ensure that happens. Ten years from now someone can look that up and hear that scream. As a result, my biggest concern with the Internet and You Tube in politics is that we will continue to focus on the stupid, petty, funny and embarrassing things that end up on You Tube and we start to move away from the real political issues at hand.
I think less people are more likely than ever to pick up a newspaper and read articles about the current candidates. Many are more likely to watch television shows for information or go onto sites like You Tube to learn more. In this sense it would be great if You Tube showed short videos on the candidate’s main issues and views for those with short attention spans. You Tube could be a credible web site if it showed clips like these, but as the links to You Tube showed, the site has chosen not to follow this path.
They can be amusing to watch, don’t get me wrong, I laugh at them and enjoy watching them, but they don’t have any substance to them. The Howard Dean video was fun to watch, but it doesn’t tell me anything about what his priorities are or what he stands for. I’m forming my opinions of him off the wrong images thanks to You Tube. Also, in the other video as soon as Jim Webb Begins to talk about the war on terrorism, the video stops. I feel You Tube has potential to gain credibility like newspapers, but maybe not for this election.
-Michelle Faust
I also feel that the internet can have both positive and negative conatations in respect to current political candidates. Unfortionatly people are more likely to point out things that are negative then they are to point out positive things about the candidates on sites like Youtube. Youtube's popularity in my oppinion is because of its ability to show short clips of what people find to be interesting in most cases based in humor. In our society we love to joke which is apparent by our late night television shows based around humor. It is much easier to laugh at situations then have to face serious matters all of the time. I do feel though that it will be easier then ever in this upcoming presidental election to get information on the candidates by using the internet. Unfortionatly the information that is posted online is not always reputable. This is not good for some politicians because the internet is not as moderate as print media where writers are expected to report fairly.
It's very interesting to see how the internet has evolved in regards to the use for politics within the past few years. I believe that the majority of our country (or at least the majority of people who vote) are on their computers and on the internet frequently, therefore it is a great idea to use the internet for publicity. Although the way that many politicians are using the internet, it can seem very planned and rehearsed, we should consider FDR's fireside chats to compare with. FDR's fireside chats were extremely popular and successful, attracting more listeners than the most popular radio shows during the golden age of radio, and they were clearly planned commentaries that he aired on the radio. In addition, many speeches or even state of the union addresses are planned. It's all about the character of the individual who is running for candidacy, and how/when they use the internet.
In regards to the internet ruining one's campaign, I think that all politicians should hire a great public relations specialist. As long as the politician knows how to act at all times-especially when there are cameras on-he/she, then there shouldn't be too many problems with getting bad press. However, if there was an issue that were to come up, that specialist would be able to help that politician out. Of course YouTube is going to help the population play the embarassing footage over and over again, but if a candidate can react in a positive way (and didn't say something too offensive) and still have the charisma to move on, their constituents will continue to support them.
Post a Comment