With no Mike Gravel at last night's debate, kudos to Dennis Kucinich for keeping things watchable.
Deftly handled, Barack.
Now that's what I call must-see TV. Also, that "lightning round" gimmick was bullcrap; it may even warrant its own post. For more fun with Dennis, check this out. Maybe the whole unhinged lunatic act is cosmic payback for affronting the gods with his disproportionately hot wife.
For those of you that don't while away your hours over at Boing Boing, here are a couple of interesting stories that merit discussion at a more appropriate hour.
In the first, anti-blogger and technology critic Andrew Keen receives a dressing down at the hands of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga over some of the statements made in Keen's new book, The Cult of the Amateur. Now, it's not the argument that interests me: clearly, based on the examples Zuniga offers, Keen wasn't exactly careful in his research (at least in terms of Zuniga's biography). However, Keen's reaction to Web 2.0 catches my attention. Is there any chance he's right? Are we all just communists pecking away at the established order to the ruination of everything? Should we all just shut up and trust the professionals to do their jobs? I think you might have an idea which way I'm leaning, but I'll elucidate more tomorrow.
Closely tied to this topic is Barack Obama's recent promise to support efforts to pass Net Neutrality laws if he's elected president. Given some of the tech talk that we get from politicians, it's nice to see a high profile candidate actually engage an issue from a relatively well-informed vantage point. Keeping the Internet free of corporate pricing packages and usage restrictions is key to the survival of online discourse as we know it. Between Obama's support for Net Neutrality and Chris Dodd's vow not to budge on telecom immunity shows that at least some people are paying attention. But what does this all mean for users? I have some thoughts, but they'll be up, alongside my review of the Romney campaign's YouTube channel, in the morning. Until then, I'll leave you with this: a potential vision of the future.
Image lifted from Something Awful by way of Boing Boing. Look here for the original article, or poke around here for more on Boing Boing's coverage of the debate.
Just when you think that it might be time to remove the "much-maligned" moniker from in front of any and all references to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), something like this happens:
On Tuesday, FEMA held what was called a "news briefing" on the California fires, but the questions asked did not come from reporters. They were asked instead by FEMA staffers.
Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question."
The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.
And, just like that, all of the good feelings generated by the agency's admittedly-capable handling of the California wildfires gets sucked down the drain because some PR guy thinks he's smarter than the Internet. I mean, honestly: how did anyone think that this was a) a good idea and b) something that no one would notice, point out, and ridicule? I mean, sure, the public loves fakenews, but not when it comes from respectable sources with a potentially vested interest in skewing the results. It's amazing, really. This is exactly the kind of thing that bloggers love to pounce on. Could a trained professional really not see this coming? Plus, where's the harm in disclosure? Admitting that the questions came from staffers filling in for reporters would've been far less embarrassing than getting caught faking the news without any regard for public interest.
If anything, this whole situation puts a spotlight on our collective media literacy. If you didn't think you had to be careful about your sources before, here's all the proof you need. Looking behind the curtain during these kinds of gaffes is interesting, because they're easy to spot. But how much of this kind of manipulation and/or incompetence floats by unnoticed? If you'd seen the video last Tuesday, would you have noticed something was up?
Though the damage has been done, the response by FEMA and the White House has been satisfactory, I guess. FEMA fired Pat Philbin, the PR guy who was responsible for the conference and was set to take over PR duties for the director of national intelligence (oh, the irony). The White House, bastion of media liberty that it is, lightly condemned the conference, noting that "it is not a practice that we would employ here". Wow. When the Bush Administration thinks you've gone to far, how must that make you feel?
I'm about as sick of these guys as you are, trust me. What figured to be a two week project has now stretched on towards three, and it's time to put the fork into the remaining Republican candidates and their YouTube offerings. If only more of them were betting men, like everyone's favorite gambling Martian, Tom Tancredo, the field might already be thinned out and I might actually be done with the first part of this little survey.
Oh, also: we're up to Rudy Giuliani.
FACT FILE: RUDOLPH GIULIANI ACCOUNT NAME: RudyGiulianiHQ NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 217 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 2,580 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 678,347 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 868,332
Now we're getting somewhere. After weeks of reviewing also-rans, cranks, and full-fledged internet phenomenons, we've finally arrived at the promised land of political campaigning: the electable candidate.
The first thing that struck me when I visited Giuliani's page was the sheer number of videos his campaign had to offer, especially in comparison to some of his fellow candidates. Simply put, there are too many clips here for any reasonable person to watch in even a few sittings. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For one, it's evidence that the campaign is actively updating the site; though it may be off-putting for first time visitors, it gives subscribers and long-time supporters reasons to come back. By the same token, this devotion to large amounts of content also gives the candidate more freedom to post different sorts of clips. For instance, Giuliani devotes a few posts to clips containing still images matched up with some of his radio ads. While those clips tend to be the least popular of the content offered, it's interesting nonetheless to see updates go in new directions.
Giuliani probably has the highest name recognition of any Republican candidate, but that doesn't stop his campaign from driving the point home further in the titles of his videos. Generally, when the clip involves a brief statement of the candidate's position, it's labeled "Rudy on..." or "Rudy believes...". By Placing the candidate's name and position in the titles, the campaign gives viewers a quick reference point before the video itself even plays.
One area that has serious potential for effective growth is the campaign's "Running with Rudy" series. Designed to give viewers an inside look at Giuliani on the campaign trail, the clips are narrated by staffer Dan Meyers, who looks like a Balls and Shaft pledge and exudes all the charm of a box of crackers. With all of the policy-minded videos and attempts to remind everyone of what an awesome politician Giuliani is, the campaign seems to be forgetting to give adequate coverage to Giuliani the person. These videos are a great idea, rockin' 80s guitar intro aside, but the execution is all off. Though the handicam style is meant to reflect the on-the-road aspect of the coverage, it often comes at the expense of any sort of decent production value. In many of these clips, I can barely hear/see the subject at hand, and often find myself bored as a result. Also, some of these clips barely show Giuliani at all, rendering the candidate an afterthought as Meyers bores people to death talking to NASCAR officials and video operators. Investing in some better equipment, a coherent shooting strategy, and a more sympathetic host might make these videos more entertaining, more enlightening, and potentially more useful.
Those brief stumbles aside, the Giuliani has put together a pretty impressive YouTube page. With a plethora of videos covering everything from celebrity endorsements to policy issues and every point in between, Giulinai's channel is a prime example of what a frontrunner with money and commitment can do with an outlet like YouTube. Though still treating the site as the next step in the broadcast model, Giuliani's page stacks up well with those of his Republican competitors. Whether or not it actually breaks any real ground is up for debate.
Mitt Romney's the last Republican we have to cover. Then, it's on to the Democrats. Also, in the interim, I'll explain my idea for how to put some numbers to all of this research. I think I have a good idea, but I'll leave that up to you.
Before I forget, I have things to give you. Here's what I'm doing instead of homework.
- Barack Obama finds himself in the middle of a flap regarding an age-old tale of gay-bashing, gospel singing, and South Carolina campaign rallies. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has more.
- This just in: Glenn Beck is still a douchebag. I dislike him more than most people.
That has nothing to do with today's post, but it's really all the intro I need before getting on with the show. Speaking of shows... haven't I seen this guy somewhere before?
Excuse me, are you... Fred Thompson?
FACT FILE: FRED THOMPSON ACCOUNT NAME: fredthompson NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 34 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 708 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 48,211 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 134,738
While Thompson's numbers aren't exactly gaudy (yet), they certainly have the potential to move in that direction despite the candidate's late start. According to the tracker at TechPresident.com, Thompson recorded a 3.2% increase in video views last week, second only to netmaster Ron Paul (5.3%) and the suddenly-interesting Mike Huckabee (5%). Not bad for a guy who's only officially been in the field since September 5th.
So, we can see that people are watching, and in increasing numbers. But, what exactly are they seeing? Why, I'm glad you asked.
You get... clever movie puns!
Debate clips!
And lots and lots of responses to challengers!
That seems like quite a bit, right? In fact, responses to challengers on the left account for roughly 18% of Thompson's video content. That's pretty substantial, especially compared with the numbers on Thompson's more direct "Ask Fred" series of clips...
...which currently make up only around 9% of the candidate's content. While the run-of-the-mill debate clips and media appearances that make up the majority of Thompson's content all deal with his stance on particular issues, you have to watch all of them to figure out which clip covers which issue. The same goes for the challenger response clips: viewers are generally presented with some version of the opponent's view before they get to see Thompson's stance.
For a late-entry candidate trying to make a name for himself in an already-crowded field, more clearly labeled, Thompson-centric, policy-driven clips might serve as a better foundation. Addressing the other side is a valuable tool, but it's not necessarily one to build a media campaign around.
We're down to two Republicans left, and we'll be dealing with at least one of them before the end of today. Which one? Well, you'll just have to wait and see.
Wow. What a week it's been. I'd like to start by offering my condolences to recently reviewed Senator Sam Brownback, who announced his withdrawal from the presidential race today. Relic of the culture war, we hardly knew ye.
Now is not the time for tears, however, and we must press on. Revived after a week of loafing, here's today's featured candidate. He's a grizzled old coot, a former POW, and helmsman of the Straight Talk Express.
John McCain, come on down.
FACT FILE: JOHN MCCAIN ACCOUNT NAME: JohnMcCaindotcom NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 80 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 1,683 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 491,644 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 622,444
The first thing that hits you when you visit John McCain's corner of YouTube? Gravitas. Yes, it seems that McCain has the market for seriousness cornered. Whether it comes in the form of a somber black template, his stark campaign logo, or video clips peppered heavily with grainy black-and-white footage from McCain's days in Vietnam, the campaign seems fixated on maintaining a sober, focused appearance. In fact, I would argue that McCain's campaign is the first one I've looked at to use YouTube as a true image-builder rather than just as another media channel. Design goes a long way, folks.
In terms of content, the videos hit all of the McCain high points: strong, stay-the-course military plan, ethics reform, and a smattering of mandatory Republican issues like gun control and the role of faith in politics.
Though they've only uploaded 80 videos so far, McCain's campaign has done an effective job of mixing candidate-produced advertisements with media coverage, on-the-ground campaign footage, and policy ruminations. After viewing McCain's videos, I've come away with a far clearer picture of all facets of the man, the solider, and the politician. While the videos don't make me agree or disagree any more than I already did, they do provide a clear, well-rounded picture of the candidate. Once I actually look at the numbers in terms of content type and overall percentage, that conclusion can be illustrated more conclusively.
I don't know why I'm so surprised that McCain's people did such a good job on their YouTube assignment. After all, they work for the man behind the best bus in all the land. It's unfortunate that their efforts haven't translated into better numbers for the candidate or his related site; then again, a snappy website alone won't win any elections.
Tomorrow, I'd like to knock out most, if not all, of the final three Republican candidates. Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mitt Romney: consider yourselves on notice.
Well, I'm back from Indiana, well-coiffed, rested, and ready to catch up on my blogging duties. Book reviews and YouTube examinations will be up later, but for now, let's focus on what really matters: the Iowa caucus.
Hot on the heels of their attention-seeking counterparts in Florida and Michigan, Iowa's political parties have jumped on the primary-moving bandwagon. Today, Iowa's Republican Party announced that, in order to preserve their state's status "first-in-the-nation caucus state", they plan to hold their primary on January 3. That's right. Instead of concentrating on the important things in life, like 3-day New Year's hangovers or the Orange Bowl, Iowans now have to cut their holidays short in order to get the voting underway.
That's not all, though. With Iowa's move, there's also the question of New Hampshire, a state which, according to the article I linked above, has a state law requiring that "no similar event can take place seven days before or after its primary". While the wording leaves room for confusion (is a caucus similar to a primary? Is so, how so?), the message coming out of New Hampshire is clear:
New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has been coy about what date he will pick, vowing not to be influenced by anything other than what is in his state's best interest. Holding the Granite State primary in December is not "off the table," Gardner said earlier this year.
That's right. Christmas? Out. Primaries? In.
Personally, the whole idea of moving primaries around doesn't sit very well with me. While some people argue that early primaries in states like Michigan and Florida reflect these states' natural interest in influencing the presidential selection process, there's another powerful lure at play: money. With early influence comes increased campaigning and media coverage, which means more people bringing more money into a state's economy. According to one estimate, the 2000 edition of the Iowa caucus brought between $70 and $90 million to the state. That same year, the New Hampshire primary was responsible for creating 2,248 jobs and bringing in $264 million in benefits. That figure approaches a Super Bowl-level economic impact for a state not known for putting on huge international events.
Clearly, these moves by the larger newcomers aren't being made in the altruistic interests of the national political process. While Florida and Michigan are no more or less deserving of primary money, their actions set a bad precedent. They rob the primary process of its quirks and tradition, reducing the nation's political world of one of its few organic conventions. They also risk expanding an already drawn-out primary season. New Hampshire's willing to start on Christmas; what's keeping Indiana from pushing towards Thanksgiving?
Though I'm as progressive as the next guy, I think that this is one case where tradition should stand as is. New Hampshire and Iowa have a right to defend the customs that help define their states. If other states want a larger say (and a larger paycheck), maybe it's time to examine some sort of standardization of the primary system. Maybe we could split the country into four groups, then rotate each group on an early-middle-late primary schedule. In 2008, Group 1 has early primaries, followed by Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4. Then, in 2012, Group 2 steps up as the first primary states, followed by Group 3, Group 4, and Group 1. You get the picture. A system like that is the only way to keep opportunistic state governments from hijacking the primary process for their own monetary gain and political self-interest.
I'm headed home for the weekend, so posting might be sporadic. I'd still like to finish the Republican YouTube reviews by the end of the weekend, but who knows if that'll actually happen.
Before we get back to the YouTube rounds, I thought a little link roundup might be in order. Here are the stories piquing my interest today:
- Bush administration to intelligence community – GSO. - Mike Huckabee to other candidates – kill yourselves. - Lou Dobbs to everyone – wear that fucking pin. - Amazon to willing customers - Whoop! Dart in yer neck! - Senate to bloggers – you guys are pretty ok.
The first one’s depressing, the next two are puzzling, the fourth is predictable, and the last one is a relief, I guess. It’s good to know I won’t have to reveal my sources in the event of a hypothetical “shit goes down” scenario. Something tells me they wouldn’t take to that very well.
Also, in case anyone’s interested, there’s an ongoing interactive Q&A session with this year’s presidential candidates going on now at washingtonpost.com. Participants include four of the ones already featured in my ongoing YouTube analysis project, so if you have any burning questions, by all means, fire away.
Finally, as per class instructions, here’s my entry into the independently-created candidate endorsement video. From YouTube user Shane Killian:
Am I… am I becoming a Ron Paul fanboy? Oh, the humanity.
I've been using this space to both introduce and poke fun at each day's candidate, but I don't really have anything bad to say this time. Go figure.
Ron Paul (R-TX), everyone. Everyone, Ron Paul.
FACT FILE: RON PAUL ACCOUNT NAME: RonPaul2008dotcom NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 52 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 30,914 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 4,446,171 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 4,453,824
In the time since politicians first began embracing the idea of the online campaign, few candidates have clicked with the Internet set as well as Ron Paul. With his mixture of small government common sense and noninterventionist foreign policy, Paul is certainly a different breed of Republican than most of his fellow candidates. He's also the most popular - at least online. When compared with even the most high-profile, big-money opponent, Paul's numbers still shine. According to TechPresident's numbers, he has the most active supporters on MySpace and Facebook of any Republican candidate. His success with YouTube is even greater; his stat of 4 million+ channel views bests that of his nearest competitor - the Democrat's Barack Obama - by almost a full million hits. Coupled with his recent eyebrow-raising fundraising efforts, these numbers may offer more than just nice-looking statistics after all.
Clearly, there's something about this seemingly mild-mannered congressman that has people talking. The question is: does the content of his videos reflect this popularity? How different is it from the content of his less successful rivals? What part is YouTube playing in the whole race, anyway?
Well, let's find out.
While Paul videos don't completely break the mold in terms of breathtakingly innovative content, he does take an interesting approach to getting his message out. While he does rely on the typical, position paper-style policy videos, he leans heavily on other people to get his message out. The results cast Paul in the light of common sense and reason in the face of political shiftiness.
Paul's folk hero mythos isn't just manufactured by his own staff, however. His campaign also makes it a point to cull media clips that refer favorably to Paul's grassroots effort.
That Paul has been able to capture the underdog appeal inherent in his run through the competitive atmosphere of campaign season speaks to both the appeal of his message and the effectiveness of his media strategy. Unlike many of the other candidates who seem to have a YouTube account simply because that's what their opponent is doing, Paul's online efforts have been well-coordinated, persuasively edited, and, ultimately, exposure-worthy.
Paul's less-is-more approach (the campaign's total video count is one of the lowest of contenders from either party) works because of the unified messages and imagery that underpins each video. Though his clips of interviews and rallys don't contain anything new, per se, they have the focus and unified voice lacking in many of the other candidate's offerings. Individually, each one is persuasive enough. Together, however, they form a cohesive, united picture of a true "people's candidate". Also, they have a music video.
That Paul's campaign avoids the temptation of tangential or unnecessary updates illustrates his commitment to online image management. With a YouTube channel that is both streamlined and popular, Paul is in as good a position as any of the middle-pack Republican candidates to make a late move towards the nomination. Whether or not his grassroots message, and its YouTube outlet, changes along the way remains to be seen.
Tomorrow's a toughie. I loved this guy so much in 2000, and I still do, in a way. Just... man...
It's the Straight-Talker himself. It's John McCain.
So, that was a weekend, there. Between the Darjeeling Limited, the world's worst Oktoberfest, and some smiling Irish eyes, updating this thing got lost in the shuffle. Now, though, we're back to the grind. After a relaxing Columbus Day, it's back to business as usual.
Today, my business involves Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA).
FACT FILE: SAM BROWNBACK ACCOUNT NAME: Brownback4President NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 47 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 628 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 501,640 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 418,042
Now, in case anyone hasn't figured it out in the last few weeks or so, I'll say it now: generally speaking, I'm not a big supporter of the GOP. It's not a fanatical hatred or anything; I just disagree with most of their policies. So far, I've approached these candidate reviews with a sense of good-natured skepticism. Sure, I'll take a few potshots for laughs, but in the end, the analysis shows what it shows. I don't have a vested interest in taking these guys down. Usually, they do a fine job of that themselves.
That said: I really dislike Sam Brownback.
Ever since reading Thomas Frank's What's The Matter With Kansas? a couple of summers ago, I have a hard time not instantly identifying Brownback as a typical culture war Republican interested more in smut and school prayer than in effective, policy-based leadership. So, that's my bias. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Make of it what you will.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, many of Brownback's videos lean heavily on his religious and cultural beliefs. Scattered among the general videos of Brownback in and around Iowa are clips concerned with abortion, gay marriage, and the candidate's own status as a Roman Catholic. For those keeping score at home, the results are "against", "against", and "Hail Mary".
When he's not comparing himself to Ronald Reagan, Brownback does touch on more hard political issues. Though they're fewer in number, they do give voters a better sense Brownback the politician because they cover areas more directly influenced by presidential decision-making.
Brownback also shows he's not afraid of a fight, calling out fellow candidate Mitt Romney by name in a few challenges. Do I smell a scrum brewing?
In the end, Brownback's videos turn out to be fairly meat-and-potatoes in terms of form and content. While he's not breaking any ground, he's also not making any mistakes. He hits the expected marks, but doesn't really go out of his way to get people fire up... or interested... or much of anything, really...
One curiousity that I did notice, however, was the the complete lack of both debate/interview clips and sample television ads. Brownback has the resume to be making more noise than he is in this pre-primary season, and it's odd that he's not making more of an attempt to capitalize on the YouTube audience. Brownback has the second-lowest video count of candidates that have been in the race from the beginning; only Duncan Hunter has fewer. Plus, it seems that no staffers have logged in since the middle of last month. Is Brownback abandoning the YouTube market already? For all of the evil genius credibility I gave this guy until now, it sure seems like he's half-assing the whole "world domination" thing. Really, I expect more from a nemesis.
Tomorrow, we'll tackle the candidate who talks like a civics professor, looks like Jerry Jones, and fundraises like a coke-addled Howard Dean: Ron Paul, this is your life.
Some candidates are known for their strong policy positions, while others rely on personality quirks to help separate them from the rest of the crowd. Then, in some years, when the mood's just right, there are the candidates who are able to get by on name alone.
This next gentleman... is not one of those candidates. His name's just silly.
Here's Mike Huckabee (R-AR).
FACT FILE: MIKE HUCKABEE ACCOUNT NAME: ExploreHuckabee NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 92 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 1,097 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 206,333 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 362,803
Huckabee's video content is quite different from that of the previous two candidate that we've looked at. While his early videos lay out his basic principles, the focus of the efforts quickly shifts to two key areas: personality and live coverage from Iowa. While Tancredo and Hunter both exhibited elements of this approach, neither of them took it as far as Huckabee. When you peruse his channel, however, the difference is obvious. Huckabee's campaign shies away from highlighting the same kind of powerful, if divisive, issue content that the other two seem to favor. Instead, they recast the candidate's values in the light of both his supporters and his humanity.
The Iowa videos are particularly interesting. Instead of using testimony from media talking heads or other politicians, Huckabee's campaign uses normal Iowans as the emssangers of support. They also manage to work in the ever-catchy "I Like Mike" slogan.
While some of these videos feature the same kind of language found in other, more inflammatory offerings, the use of actual citizens seems to soften the blow.
Coupled with Huckabee's focus on the everyday person is his effort to put a human face on his hilarious name. When we see Mike in the newer videos, he's rarely debating or being interviewed. Rather, he's more likely to be found doing mundane tasks, like surfing the web, or just plain rocking out:
Huckabee also takes time to address so-called liberal concerns like arts education, the first signs of cross-party appeals that we've seen so far:
Finally, on a completely unrelated note, here's another hilarious, Huckabee-connected name. Everyone, meet Chip Saltsman!
What has this feel-good, non-confrontational approach gotten Huckabee? Well, not much. Currently, despite his videos' best intentions, he trails even Hunter and Tancredo in channel and total video views. Strangely, however, he still holds an edge in total subscribers among the three. This seems to suggest that, while many people find his message palatable enough to support, his unwillingness to tackle inflammatory, divisive issues may sap his campaign of some potential coverage. I mean, I came out of this experience liking Huckabee more than I thought I would. Then again, I'm not exactly his intended audience.
Maybe that says it all.
Also, nice guys finish last. Just ask Green Day.
Tomorrow, we keep the good Republican vibrations rolling with Sam Brownback, cousin of Danger Mouse villain and anthropomorphic toad Silas Greenback.
The next candidate to undergo the YouTube review treatment that I mentioned yesterday has the eyes of a serial killer and the foreign policy of... a mass murderer!
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO).
FACT FILE: TOM TANCREDO ACCOUNT NAME: TeamTancredo NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 133 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 795 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 437,140 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 514,771
All kidding aside, Tancredo's people are far more involved than Hunter's when it comes to maintaining their candidate's YouTube presence. Part of this comes from simple participation; staffers are still logging in daily, interacting with supporters and posting new videos (the last update, as of today, came yesterday afternoon). However, the Tancredo campaign's strategy goes deeper, and is best reflected in the content of the videos themselves.
Now, make no mistake: Tancredo still spends plenty of time making sure everyone knows where he stands on hot-button conservative issues like immigration, federal debt, and the war in Iraq. However, unlike Duncan Hunter, Tancredo doesn't stop there. Among the videos, there are traditional television spots, staged interviews, and calls to action against opponents both Democrat and Republican. However, the majority of his videos fall into two categories: highlights of debates and interview appearances, and informal, candid discussions about his stances and beliefs. Given his status as a fringe candidate, this approach makes sense. Without the face time or coverage of the other candidates, Tancredo has to get his name into the open somehow. If the media isn't going to give him the time he needs, YouTube is a natural alternative.
However, this approach is still hampered by the candidate's relative lack of recognition. Tancredo, much like Hunter, has to spend the majority of his time getting people to remember his policy, a tactic which leaves little room for spotlights on personal character or non-issue related interests. We get little to nothing about Tancredo's past or personality from these videos. In the end, we may know Tancredo the politician, but we still don't know Tancredo the person. For a candidate with limited exposure, this is a prime example of an opportunity wasted.
Personally, I certainly know more about Tom Tancredo now than I did before, at least as far as his political leanings and media coverage go. I still think he's basically crazy, but I do appreciate his humorous response to the whole "John Edwards and his $400 haircut" debacle from a few months back. If we can't laugh at ourselves, who can we laugh at?
Though Tom Tancredo has little hope for a successful nomination bid, his strategy when it comes to YouTube promotion seems to follow the standards set by some of his more popular counterparts. Though he doesn't go far enough in terms of content variety, the videos are a step in the right direction. In that hands of a more high profile candidate, I think we'll see a very different mixture. Only the analysis can tell for sure.
Tomorrow, head back here to see how the candidate with the silliest name since Dale Bumpers approaches the YouTube challenge. That's right: it's Mike Huckabee.
Since this entire blog was started as a class assignment for my Media and Politics class, I figure that it's high time I start looking deeper into the connection between those two concepts. Thus, it's time for a new project.
What does that mean right now, you ask?
It's time to review the candidates' YouTube sites.
Over the next couple of weeks, I'll be featuring video samples and reviews of the YouTube offerings from each of the 17 remaining presidential hopefuls. As a new form of direct politcal communication, I have a feeling that the usefulness of these videos goes far beyond their scripted content. What do they tells us about the candidates and their campaigns? Why, let's find out.
(Before we begin, I'd like to thank the fine people at TechPresident.com for sparking my interest in the topic and providing some hard numbers to work with. Also, as a show of good faith, I've decided to let the Republicans go first.)
REPUBLICANS, PART I - THE STATISTICAL OUTLIERS!
It's a cold, hard fact of political campaigns: in a crowded field of candidates, not everyone gets equal face time. Sometimes, they lack name recognition. Other times, they're completely batshit loco. With no realistic chance of actually winning the nomination, these candidates are often looked upon with a mixture of pity and morbid curiousity. And yet, they soldier on, and in great numbers. For every glamour candidate like Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson, there are two schmendriks like Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter skulking listlessly in the wings, waiting patiently for their time to shine.
That time, of course, is today.
FACT FILE: DUNCAN HUNTER ACCOUNT NAME: GoHunterGo NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 20 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 695 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 372,889 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 425,979
Rep. Duncan Hunter(R-CA)'s YouTube channel tells the tale of a man who appears to be one more failed straw poll away from packing in this whole president nonsense and heading home to America's Finest City for some reflection, soul-searching, and fish tacos.
Though Hunter saw some early success in the nascent stages of the campaign, he's basically fallen off the map in terms of legitimate candidacy, and his YouTube content reflects that in a big way. In fact, his site features all of the hallmarks of surrender: no one from Hunter's staff has logged in for almost a month, the last content update came in July, and the total number of clips is the lowest of all candidates by over 40 videos. If I'm wrong, and this is Hunter's idea of some kind of passive success strategy, he may be a genius. If I'm not, he may be off the ballots.
In terms of content, Hunter's videos are mostly of the position paper/debate clip variety. The videos focus simply on getting Hunter's own politcal beliefs out into the open, eschewing the humanizing, personal insights and fiesty saber-rattling found in some of his fellow candidates. He also manages to call Ann Coulter a "a very articulate spokeswoman for the conservative view", which should win him points with... well, Ann Coulter. Maybe.
Blogosphere shotouts aside, Hunter's videosaren't going to wow audiences any time soon. The low number, coupled with the rudimentary focus, renders the videos ineffective outside the "getting to know you" phase. Devoting an obviously limited interest to such a narrow focus might suggest that, in reality, people might just not be listening.
Tune in tomorrow for the second half of Part I, featuring Mr. Hunter's fellow unlikely candidate, and the field's resident glassy-eyed nutball, Tom Tancredo.
