Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Power of the Internets
There is a pretty good article today in the "Washington Post" on the potential the Internet has to transform the manner in which politics in the United States plays itself out. Under the title: "Politics is no Longer Local. It's Viral," Jose Vargas argues that the Internet has the potential to bring together individuals in a way no other technology in the past has--to connect individuals spread out distances great and small, and organize them into a political force. From "Facebook" to SMS to "YouTube," it is a force that is only in its infancy, which means great things lie ahead for those of us who carefully watch politics.
The writer, who tells us that he was hired by the "Post" in 2007 "just before" his 26th birthday, to cover "the marriage of Internet and politics." We also learn that he "majored in political science" but is in fact "no political expert." He let's us know that the Internet is transformative to politics as usual, with the usual being television, because television is all about "being in control and staying on message." The Web? It is "an uncontrollable, freewhelling medium" that allows individuals a voice in the process.
The only downside to the article in large part comes from the writer's declaration that, while being a political science major, he was never interested much in politics at a deeper level. And since all he has known, in his young age, has been the Internet and people telling him that he (or his generation) is special. Thus the technology that is his (or his generation) is naturally bound to tear up the old order and the old way of thinking. So the article underscores the ideal that the traditional media is dead.
To make matters worst, what he understands about the new technology has come from technophiles--and for his money, the best book on the subject--drumroll--is Al Gore's The Assault on Reason. And we all know how measured Al Gore is when it comes to something like the Internet. It would be like writing about democracy in America, and the only thing you know about it has come from the collected writings of Dennis Kucinich.
Vargas, to bolster his point that we have a way around the media block, points out the "wall-to-wall coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's provactive homilies" where the MSM "coverage consisted mostly of sound bites, replaying and replaying a 20-second or so clip of what Wright had said" while Netizens could have their own conversation by watching Obama's speech on race on YouTube while also forming discussion groups on the topic at other "social networking sites." He also notes that the media were forced to take notice of Obama prior to the start of the primaries because he had brought together so many people, who had contributed less than $200, but together had raised serious money. In the pre-Internet period, the MSM may not have given Obama any notice because he didn't attract those with deep pockets.
But before we get carried away, we should temper our enthusiasm by considering:
But I do agree with one of Vargas's central points--any candidate in the future who does not have an Internet/new technology component to their campaign will start the race well behind those who do.
|
The writer, who tells us that he was hired by the "Post" in 2007 "just before" his 26th birthday, to cover "the marriage of Internet and politics." We also learn that he "majored in political science" but is in fact "no political expert." He let's us know that the Internet is transformative to politics as usual, with the usual being television, because television is all about "being in control and staying on message." The Web? It is "an uncontrollable, freewhelling medium" that allows individuals a voice in the process.
The only downside to the article in large part comes from the writer's declaration that, while being a political science major, he was never interested much in politics at a deeper level. And since all he has known, in his young age, has been the Internet and people telling him that he (or his generation) is special. Thus the technology that is his (or his generation) is naturally bound to tear up the old order and the old way of thinking. So the article underscores the ideal that the traditional media is dead.
To make matters worst, what he understands about the new technology has come from technophiles--and for his money, the best book on the subject--drumroll--is Al Gore's The Assault on Reason. And we all know how measured Al Gore is when it comes to something like the Internet. It would be like writing about democracy in America, and the only thing you know about it has come from the collected writings of Dennis Kucinich.
Vargas, to bolster his point that we have a way around the media block, points out the "wall-to-wall coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's provactive homilies" where the MSM "coverage consisted mostly of sound bites, replaying and replaying a 20-second or so clip of what Wright had said" while Netizens could have their own conversation by watching Obama's speech on race on YouTube while also forming discussion groups on the topic at other "social networking sites." He also notes that the media were forced to take notice of Obama prior to the start of the primaries because he had brought together so many people, who had contributed less than $200, but together had raised serious money. In the pre-Internet period, the MSM may not have given Obama any notice because he didn't attract those with deep pockets.
But before we get carried away, we should temper our enthusiasm by considering:
- The candidacy of Ron Paul, who raised, in one quarter, as much as anyone and who had a viral network of thousands of die hard fans who would show up in droves at rallies. Despite this outpouring of netroots activity, Paul's campaign got either zero or negative coverage by the MSM, and we saw how far he got;
- How much was Obama helped by the 1) novelty of the candidate and 2) the lack of decent slate of presidential hopefuls?
- How much did old fashion, traditional politics play into the way the 2008 election unfolded? Obama built organizations in smaller, off the beaten path states and placed organization in Iowa while Clinton placed all her eggs in the first several races, planning on wrapping up the nomination by early- March? Thus when Clinton stumbled out of the gates, her strategy left her behind the eight-ball once the race wound its way through March and then into April, she quickly ran out of money and options. Had her plan worked, it is not likely that Obama would have ended up the nominee.
- How much did the race come down to money? If Obama had come into the general election struggling to raise cash, how much different might this race had been? What did money do for Obama? It enabled him to buy advertising in more states than just the battleground states, thus forcing McCain into defending areas that should have been naturally for him. It enabled Obama to run those informercials and to run some positive ads, thus when the question came down to who was more negative, money bought him positive press coverage there as well. Money, money, money. Nothing new about it.
But I do agree with one of Vargas's central points--any candidate in the future who does not have an Internet/new technology component to their campaign will start the race well behind those who do.
