The Wizard of Glover Park

Political Video Tu- Thursday?: The Race So Far

2008-05-01T09:52:00.000-07:00

I couldn't help but post this, since it basically recaps everything I've done on this blog for the past nine months. Thanks, Slate!

Book Review: Interface

2008-04-14T09:54:00.000-07:00

Whenever it comes to mixing technology, message crafting, and the presidency, people tend to get a little... hyperbolic. From The Manchurian Candidate to The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror, it seems that the entertainment industry is particularly keen on telling stories about how our leaders are probably out to kill us. However, when treated with a deft hand, this kind of storytelling can offer revealing look into the ways in which electoral politics can both free and enslave, depending on perspective.

Neal Stephenson and George Jewesbury's Interface presents a world in which mass media conglomerates plan to seize full control of the United States through a chip-augmented Illinois governor blessed with the power to perceive and adapt to any and all changes in public opinion. For political consultants, this sort of prediction would probably be met with either snorts of derision or shrugs of it-could-happen. With some of the sci-fi gee-whiz peeled away, Interface becomes an interesting examination of the reliance on a fetishization of political statistical analysis.

Interface highlights the worst habits of political strategists and marketers, like the temptation to view the public at-large as little more than poll numbers and demographics. It also serves as an reminder about the power and importance of grassroots involvement in politics. By breaking out of the typical, passive roles that they are often assigned, voters have the opportunity to affect real political change on their terms instead of being lead by the nose by powerful outside forces.

MAINTENANCE!

2008-04-12T14:25:00.000-07:00

With the end of the semester fast approaching, I've taken down quite a few entries for tune-up purposes. I know leaving them up would make more sense, but it's easier to keep track of which ones I've gone over if I send them all back to drafts. So, eager fans, bear with me for the next week. After that, everything should be back to normal.

Political Video Tuesday - There are cameras in Florida, you know.

2008-04-01T12:22:00.000-07:00

We all know of famous cases of Internet-fueled flaps that brought down both candidates and Congressmen alike. There was Trent Lott's race-tinged speech at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, or George Allen's unfortunate "Macaca moment" during the leadup to the 2006 midterms. During this primary cycle, videos of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright stirred up a controversy that resulted in what some call the most important speech on race in America in over half a century.

Now, we may have another smoking gun clip on our hands. This time, the issue at hand is the seating of Florida's delegates at the Democratic National Convention. Supporters of plans to rescind threats to not seat the state's delegation claim that, among other things, the Florida Democrats were essential bystanders, wringing their hands on the sidelines as their Republican counterparts hatched a dastardly scheme to push up the primary (comment 219 on the New York Times link sums up their case pretty well).

Then, this happened:

DailyKos has all the discussion you need, but I gotta ask: where's the anger towards the state party (the rightful target, if there is such a thing), and how long before this gets picked up outside the blogosphere?

Obama's blue plate special.

2008-03-28T08:44:00.001-07:00

Guess who’s coming to dinner? If you said Barack Obama, you’d be on to something.

When the money’s tight and every race counts, campaigns need to pull out all of the fundraising stops in order to insure that interest remains high and money remains forthcoming. With his latest online initiative freshly in my mailbox, Barack Obama is once again taking this advice to heart. Between now and March 31st, donors to Obama’s campaign will be entered into a pool of potential dinner guests who get to share a meal with the candidate himself.

There are multiple reasons to like this approach. For one, it seems to adhere to the idea that the most effective use of the internet as a political tool revolves around digitally organizing people for real-world events. The whole appeal of this fundraising push centers on the fact that donors can share dinner with the candidate and fellow supporters. If the campaign had touted this as a virtual dinner, staged remotely with more winners, the buzz wouldn’t be nearly the same.

Second, the campaign’s tactics reaffirm the idea that people will always be up for a game. Like the office workers who enter March Madness pools despite not following college basketball, potential donors this week will likely be spurred on by the promise of a potential “win”. Though the odds may be long for the donors, the results are the same for the campaign: increased cash flow at a time when opportunities for positive campaign news are at a premium.

Finally, this homespun approach to campaigning reflects the fact that the Obama campaign understands of the power of grassroots and netroots organizing, and provides another opportunity for Obama to appear “of the people, by the people”. In the campaign email that I received was quick to point out Obama’s populist appeal:

While Senator Clinton and Senator McCain have accepted millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, this campaign has relied on more than a million individual donors giving only what they can afford. Just last month, more than 90% of the donations to Obama for America were for $100 or less.

Whether or not this gimmick translates into increased fundraising (something that Obama’s campaign has had little trouble with, anyway) remains to be seen. However, as a fan of both political strategy and Barack Obama, I support the fact that the campaign is countering the kitchen sink with the kitchen table.

And yes, I donated today. Fingers crossed!

BOOK REVIEW: Poli-fluentials: The New Political Kingmakers

2008-03-26T08:53:00.000-07:00

You know, all good streaks have to end sometime. Over the past few weeks, I've had the opportunity to read some of the reports from George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy, and the Internet, and I've been more impressed by each successive document. That is, until this week. This week, I found that IPDI can completely whiff once in a while. But, hey. 75%'s not bad, right?

It's not that this report doesn't contain interesting material and draw compelling conclusions. It does. The problems that I had with the document stem from two different oversights: a) though it claims to approach its classification process scientifically, the approach researchers use is flawed, and b) it's not telling our class anything that we didn't know thanks to Malcolm Gladwell.

The classification system that the report uses to categorize individuals as "poli-fluentials" is hampered by its limited criteria and small sample size. Setting aside the structural flaws, the report also does a fairly shoddy job of explaining exactly how to take advantage of such individuals, or even how to identify them in the first place. It's like they had a really interesting idea for a report, but then simply lost steam when it came time to flesh it out.

Problematic for our class is also the fact that this report is redundant. Much of the territory covered in this report was covered more engagingly by Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point. Slapping some specious political statistics on Gladwell basic ideas doesn't make for an enlightening reading experience. Rather, it leaves me scratching my head, wondering what all the fuss is about.

Political Video Tuesday - Raining McCain

2008-03-25T13:17:00.000-07:00

Um... what?

I... um... what?

This seems like a mistake. And yet. This might be the most endearing thing to come out of McCain's campaign. If this is actually legit, then kudos. If it's a fake... well, that might be even more impressive.

Easter Break

2008-03-21T12:51:00.000-07:00

It's Easter, so no updates for a few days. Also, this.

Cool Sites - Ringtones08

2008-03-20T17:49:00.000-07:00

In keeping with the spirit of this week's book review, I thought I'd turn your attention to a site that's pretty much keyed in on the whole mobile politics kerfuffle.

The good folks over at Ringtone08 feel that your phone's ring might as well reflect your politics, catchy Fergie tones be damned. To this end, they've created a site where users can not only find and download ringtones of their favorite candidate free of charge, but create and market their own free ringtones.

While most of the content so far has dealt with the presidential election and recent Eliot Spitzer scandal, I'd be interested to see if any intrepid state or local candidates harness this sort of mobile strategy for use by their supporters. It seems like a concentrated group of people, living in a relatively compact area, could really use something like this effectively as a means of candidate branding. Of course, that also assumes that the ringtone is catchy (an unfortunate prerequisite, perhaps, but present nonetheless).

Oh, if you're curious, I'm now sporting the "Yes, We Can" Obama tone. I'm not only a Ringtones08 advocate - I'm also a user!

BOOK REVIEW: The Politics-to-Go Handbook: A Guide to Using Mobile Technology in Politics

2008-03-19T11:53:00.000-07:00

As far as politics and technology goes, the one medium that I had little exposure to before coming to Georgetown was the world of mobile politics. While the combination of widely available mobile technology and political action seems like a natural fit, it wasn't something that I'd had any kind of personal relationship with. That all changed upon reading yet another of IPDI's fantastically effective handbooks. Like most of IPDI's work, this handbook is designed for practical application, and is generally free from both the Utopian technological determinism and over-skeptical Luddite warnings that poison many works on political technology. The authors of this book realize that, like everything else in the world of political action, mobile technology represents one possible approach to political media. While not a magic bullet by itself, mobile technology can be used effectively in tandem with other technologies, and is particularly well-suited to organizing specific actions and alerting supporters of opportunities for independent activism.

While much of the book deals with ways in which campaigns themeselves can use mobile technology as part of their digital strategy, time is also devoted to examining the effects of mobile proliferation on things like citizen journalism. In a world where everyone has a camera/recording device in their pocket, the opportunities for event-related spin are reduced. One only needs to look as far as George Allen and the infamous Macaca moment, or even to the "Don't tase me, bro!" debacle at the University of Florida, to realize the potential that unfiltered transmission grants to the world of news coverage.

Time is also spent examining the United States' relative lack of mobile penetration, an interesting read for anyone interested in the quagmire that is the American telecom industry. With our current tangle of service providers, it's no wonder that the potential for mobile activism in the US is nowhere near that of other, more effectively linked countries like Korea. However, that is a diatribe for another day.

For anyone who doesn't have time to read the entire handbook (hint: make time.), here's a handy executive summary that hits the highlights. Pay special attention to numbers one, three, five, and eight. Just sayin'.

Political Video Tuesday - The Living Room Candidate

2008-03-18T11:38:00.000-07:00

If you're a complete political advertising junkie like me, you're probably in heaven these days. With the emergence of cheap broadband and a new commitment by campaigns to capture the internet market, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some well-done, persuasive videos. Some are amazingly aware of their audience (Mike Huckabee's fabulous Chuck Norris ad), while others sort of... miss the mark (basically any Hillary Clinton video targeting the youth vote). However, for some, this glut of new content isn't enough.

To all of the true geeks out there who want some honest-to-God historical context for today's ads: your time has come. Thanks to The Living Room Candidate, a feature that's part of the compelling Museum of the Moving Image, American Presidential election fans can get their fill of campaign advertising from Eisenhower forward. Each race is treated to a general overview, and ads from both candidates are presented for comparison.

Cooler still, the site allows users to use preset categories to view similar ads from different races, making categorization and trend-spotting even easier. Plus, full transcripts of each ad are available, which came in handy once I got the following song stuck in my head:

Sadly, the site's one drawback is its lack of embedding options. Head on over anyway, though, and get ready to lose a couple of hours.

A belated valentine to Ron Paul

2008-03-13T11:25:00.000-07:00

I know this is a bit late, but here goes.

Ron Paul, you're a crazy person. A crazy person with ideas, but a crazy person all the same. I'm sorry that my roommate accosted you about Facebook. He's quite a handful. I wish you weren't a mad scientist, but alas.

Happy belated Valentine's Day,
Tyler

BOOK REVIEW: Person-to-Person-to-Person: Harnessing the Political Power of Online Social Networks and User Generated Content

2008-03-12T14:13:00.000-07:00

We're up to another one of those fantastic IPDI reports on today's book review, a treat for you and I alike. Today's covers topics that I have become intimately familiar with over the course of the past academic year: social networks and user-generated content. While there's no question that these areas are having a definite impact on the world of political campaigns, this report examines exactly how campaign managers can replicate and profit from an essentially organic political process.

The report is amazingly comprehensive, running the gamut from digital effects on traditional media forms (Chuck DeFeo's chapter on talk radio's transition into the blogging community) to encouraging offline contacts and action once online communities are established (Brad Fey's chapter on the shifting nature of word-of-mouth advertising). All of these chapters are presented in plain-speaking, easy-to-implement forms, which seems to fit IPDI's commitment to producing applicable handbooks rather than starry-eyed book of theory.

Personally, my favorite chapter covered the use of video games as a persuasive political tool. The chapter mainly focuses on the concept of adver-gaming, or the use of video games as a medium for message presentation and reinforcement. This approach mirrors game studies specialist Ian Bogost's concept of procedural rhetoric, a topic that I'm keen to explore as part of my thesis research next year. Bogost's argument that games persuade by "running processes and executing rule-based symbolic manipulation" lends itself well to the inclusion of nuanced, persuasive content within the video game system. The fact that the political half of the industry is picking up on the concept is heartening, and suggests that further exploration is necessary.

Political Video Tuesday - 23/6

2008-03-11T09:28:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how many other internet humor fans are reading my blog out there (though, judging by my general friend base, I can sort of assume that there are a few of you), but today's site should appeal to pretty much everyone I know. It's called 23/6, it's run by the Huffington Post and former Daily Show staffers, and it specializes in, among other things, some of the most amazing spoof political advertisements that I've ever seen.

You might be familiar with the group's most famous cast of characters: the Swift Kids. Playing off of everyone's favorite irascibly outraged veterans' group, the Swift Kids ask the tough questions. Witness!

Aside from the Swift Kids, 23/6 has much more to offer. Witness x2!

Aww, who am I kidding? It's all about the kids, man.

Social Network Update VII - For A Good Cause

2008-03-10T21:23:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd take some time to plug a social network cause that's actually having a big impact on my out-of-class life at the moment. As many of you may know, we here at CCT are in a potentially drawn-out fight to get another full-time media and politics professor hired for next fall. Without going into too many details, things aren't looking exactly rosy. Thus, in the spirit of online activism, we decided to go to the internet as a means of organizing the masses.

When we decided to go online, however, we were faced with a dilemma: exactly how would we structure our movement, and what tools would we use to get our message out and action taken?

Since our campaign was going to be fairly local and specialized, we decided that a combination of private communications and information offers and public action opportunities would be the best way to alert our peers to our problem and give them a chance to help us out. To this end, we decided to use two tool that have become quite familiar to readers of this blog: Facebook and Care2.

Since our outreach was going to be targeted at members of our specific peer group, the four of us behind the campaign began by sending out Facebook messages to all of our contacts at Georgetown and other Consortium universities. Facebook allowed us to reach people who we were already connected to and to inform them of where the situation stood regarding our need for a professor.

However, Facebook alone was not sufficient. Since it is not designed with activism in mind, it lacks easily adaptable features for action-related activity. We could've had people join a group or an event (which we did create to serve as an advertisement), but that wouldn't have the same impact as something more intuitively designed. It would've also restricted activity to out peers who were already signed up to use Facebook - not exactly the best strategy in this case. Thus, we turned to another website to give our supporters an easy way to help us: Care2's Petition Site.

We created this petition, copying the appeals that we'd used in the Facebook message and event portions of the campaign, and set a deadline for signatures. Once people began to respond, we sent out blast messages to everyone who had yet to sign the petition, and continued to advertise it in away messages and status updates on AIM, Facebook, and GChat. In the end, after circulating the petition around our limited target group for two weeks, we ended up collecting 80 signatures. We've submitted the petition to the head of our program, and are now waiting to hear back.

UPDATE (4/2): Well, a response came down. From unnamed sources come reports of an emergency staff meeting in which the most vocal member of our little group was been labeled "a troublemaker", our petition as "crummy", and our definition of media and politics as grossly lacking.

(Side note: for a program so enamored with technology, the idea that a technology-oriented petition would be ridiculed by the very people pushing these techno-Utopian pronouncements strikes me as off. If we'd written this in a paper instead of targeted it at them, they'd be falling over themselves to help us publish.)

However, for all of the unprofessional cheap shots, we've also heard that a new professor will indeed be hired to teach media and politics at CCT this fall. So, though we may be firebrands, we're at least successful firebrands.

Spring Break!

2008-03-03T14:29:00.000-08:00

Just a note to let everyone know that I'll be taking the week of in honor of Georgetown's spring recess. I plan to use the week to finally get around to emptying out my draft log and establishing some order around here.

Wish me luck.

Cool Sites - Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle/Hillary Is Mom Jeans

2008-02-28T16:15:00.000-08:00

While this week's cool sites might not be as calculatingly awesome as some of the flashier ones that have popped up over this election cycle, they do have one thing going for them. What they lack in technical whiz-bang, they make up for by effectively capture the most important voting block of all: fans of Internet memes.

These two sites, writer Matthew Honan's Barack Obama Is Your New Bicycle and Jacob Walker's Hillary Is Mom Jeans, both strive to hammer home the same message: Barack Obama is cool kid, while Hillary Clinton is more of the student government square. Admittedly, these aren't exactly fresh topics; however, what the sites lack in originality of message, they more than make up for with intriguing delivery. Visitors to the sites (a membership which I hope, by now, includes you, dear readers) are greeted by little more than a giant hyperlinked statement regarding what makes Obama cool and/or Hillary lame. These phrases are generally life-affirming and nonsensical. For instance, Obama's site is filling with Christ-like examples of generosity ("Barack Obama sent you flowers", "Barack Obama helped you move a sofa"), while the Clinton site focuses on behavior normally associated with terrible roommates rather than presidential candidates ("Hillary forgot to water your plants", "Hillary works for Blackwater").

Now, why do these sites work? For one, they appeal to the surreality that seems to be inherent in Internet humor. In fact, these sites are far better examples of Internet humor than they are of political humor. The jokes here aren't focused on policy, issues, or even the ongoing campaign; rather, they're tangentially connected to the public's general opinion of the candidates. This sort of presentation could just as easily have been assigned to another well known figure a la the Chuck Norris joke movement. The fact that they happen to be about politicians gives us campaign junkies all the more reasons to smile.

Secondly, the presentation has a big impact. Many online humor sites are bogged down with non-optional streaming video, bulky Flash pages, and content that prizes involved style over substance and, importantly, frequent updates. With the minimalist presentation, the creators are allowed to focus on crafting a catchy meme that is memorable and easily repeatable. I would argue that this is the same kind of approach that we see in most successful online memes.

Another important factor in the success of these sites as memes is audience participation. Although it is the newer of the two sites, Hillary Is Mom Jeans might actually win the day in this regard. While Honan's site has the virtue of being the originator of the style, Walker made a crucial improvement to his site's layout: the addition of a user-submission box. Rather than generating all of the content internally like the Obama site (which doesn't even feature Honan's contact information, let alone a submission section), the Clinton site encourages audience ownership of ongoing creation. This factor is key for the success of any would-be viral movement, and it's nice to see this particular meme moving quickly in that direction.

it also appears that Honan approves as well, stating in a TechBlog interview that "Jacob Walker created this great parody site of BOIYNB. He really nailed it, I think. It's a riot, but it also demonstrates why her campaign is in trouble".

Quite right on all accounts, Mr. Honan. Quite right.

BOOK REVIEW: An Army of Davids

2008-02-27T13:33:00.000-08:00

Oh, Glenn Reynolds. You almost had me. Really, you did. I was going along, reading through my copy of your long-titled An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, and I was really on board. See, in the beginning of your book, you seem like a reasonable individual. You take on the music industry in a way that I can only describe as reasonable. Sure, in order to do so you had to fund and establish your own home studio, but that's part of it, right? A great example of how the emergence of relatively cheap, pro-sumer electronics has combined with the an independent spirit to revolutionize popular music. Rad!

Then, I got worried. The chapter on welcoming "big box" booksellers to a neighborhood rubbed me wrong, somehow. Fuck atmosphere or alternative selection! John Grisham and a latte for $15, right? It seemed like an interesting argument to make, considering that many in the retail world would consider stores like Borders or Barnes and Noble Goliaths rather than Davids, but ok. I got it. They were offering a David-y service, creating community rather than maximizing profit. Corporate bookstores... have our best interests in mind?

After that, though, you lost me, Glenn. The whole bit about citizen surveillance of terror suspects is what got me to close the book for good. While I can admit that the examples that you used were persuasive, the fact remains that encouraging that kind of Junior Stasi spy-on-your-neighbors bullshit is not the kind of technological effect that I consider laudable. In fact, I'm not even sure it completely fits, considering the fact that all of these Davids with camera phones and a nosy disposition are generally taking orders from the biggest Goliath there is (the government) when it comes to figuring out who's supposed to be dangerous this week.

Thus, I will not be finishing your book at this point, Glenn. I just don't have it in me this week.

Political Video Tuesday - Viva Obama

2008-02-26T14:12:00.000-08:00

Well, if Obama plans on capturing a primary victory in Texas next week, he'll certainly need to capture the sentiment expressed in this video. Personally, I'd be satisfied if I could capture one of those fine-looking hats that those gentlemen are wearing.

For good measure, and for all of my Spanish-speaking friends (Emily, I'm looking at you), here's another video. Viva Obama, and viva reggaeton.

Social Network Update VI - The Competition

2008-02-25T14:22:00.000-08:00

For today's social network update, I figured I might give Barack Obama's groups a breather this week in favor of scanning around for the competition. That's right, the other guys. The opponents. The rivals. I'm talking, of course, about Hillary Clinton supporters.

Before Obama fans can get geared up to take on the Republicans in the fall, we have to survive a challenge from within our own party. Clinton has a strong base and great name recognition, but she isn't exactly the sharpest candidate in terms of digital campaign strategy. How does this lack of online acumen translate on Facebook and Care2? Well, there's only one way to find out.

FACEBOOK

The first thing you'll probably notice when searching Facebook for Hillary Clinton is the negative groups. Simply put, there are lots of them. Out of the first 10 results for a group search on Facebook, eight groups are anti-Clinton. They run the gamut, from ideological ("Hillary Clinton is the Anti-Christ! VOTE CONSERVATIVE!") to sexist ("Hillary Clinton is a Man and I will not Vote for Him") to the hyperbolic ("If HIllary Clinton is Elected, I'm Moving to Canada!"). By contrast, a group search for Barack Obama reveals a completely inverted ratio, with only two anti-Obama groups ("Stop Barack Obama", "Against Barack Obama") and none of the overt vitriol found among the Clinton groups.

So, what gives? Why is Hillary Clinton so grossly unpopular on Facebook despite locking Obama in a virtual stalemate nationally? My guess is that Facebook just doesn't cater to Clinton's natural constituency. Not only is it an online community (an area of organization that doesn't exactly play to Clinton's strength), but it's a primarily youth-based group. Despite having the support of George McGovern, Clinton has failed to gain the attention of McGovern-style supporters; by and large, young voters and intellectuals have flocked in droves to Barack Obama, leaving Clinton's cupboard relatively bare.

CARE2

Over at Care2, things are just as bleak. While the folks on Care2 are far more civil than their Facebook counterparts, they're also far less interested in the Clinton campaign. Care2 lacks both the negative groups that are so popular on Facebook and the positive groups that could actually do the campaign some good. While Barack Obama's Care2 supporters hover somewhere around 1,000 (not great by any stretch of the imagination, Clinton's numbers are even worse; in the two groups that support her, Clinton can count just over 200 Care2 members as active supporters.

Obama decided early on to make online organizing a cornerstone of his campaign, and it's paying off. Clinton's skill at 90s-style politics left her both unfamiliar with emerging trends and unwilling to take the risks necessary to overcome the gap. If there's one base cause for her flagging online support, that might be it.

Cool Sites - Huffington Post Donation Tracker

2008-02-22T15:08:00.000-08:00

I can only spare a quick update today, but I think it's a pretty good one. As I was bouncing around the blogs last night, I discovered this interesting feature over at the Huffington Post. They call it Fundrace 2008, and it's a fascinating look at fundraising.

Using FEC records from the past two Presidential election cycles, the people at the Post have mapped out personal donations across the country. So, if you've ever been curious about how much your favorite celebrities (Paul Simon: $4,600 to Chris Dodd for 2008) or even your neighbors (a lady in my parents' neighborhood: $2,000 to Bob Graham for 2004) have donated to political candidates, this is the place to go.

Play around a little. It's a pretty intuitive site. My only complaints could be remedied by a broadening of scope, but I don't consider that a bad sign.

Political Video Tuesday - Hillary Goes Negative

2008-02-19T16:41:00.000-08:00

I try to limit myself to posting videos that are either a) really clever or b) Internet -related. Those descriptions don't really cover this particular clip, but in honor of tonight's Wisconsin primaries, I'll let it slide.

An interesting choice for attack. Clearly, Clinton hasn't yet fuly embraced the negative, because this ad's pretty tame. Personally, I think Obama's smart for not agreeing to a debate that would essentially be free publicity for a Clinton campaign whose money troubles are well-publicized. Time will tell whether or not the voters of Wisconsin agree.

EDIT: They do not. It's Wednesday morning in America, and Wisconsin likes Obama. CNN reports that the Illinois senator won across almost every demographic group. It's looking increasingly likely that Clinton's only really option is to go fiercely negative in the upcoming states and debates, but even that might not be enough. Then again, this is the same woman who described this political negativity as "the fun part", so I'll hold off on predictions for now.

Social Network Update V – Start Your Own Revolution

2008-02-18T18:52:00.000-08:00

This week's social network update focuses less on my experiences in the already-established Obama-related groups on Facebook and Care2 and more on what it might actually be like to get in on the action myself. One of the thing that I've seen touted regarding the political social network revolution is the ease with which any member of the community can create and organize a real-world event using online tools. Since this is obviously something to crow about, I figured I should give it a shot.

Now, I've been creating events on Facebook ever since they added the option all those years ago. Thus, going the the process of creating yet another event there wouldn't really give me any insight into the process. So, I've decided to fudge things a little and use, in addition to Care2, Barack Obama's official social network as the proving ground for my event experiment. One of the great advantages Obama's site has over the other social networks is its complete focus on the candidate. This approach allows community members to appeal to an already-friendly base, but also requires them to stand out among all of the other Obama-related events. Thus, it should be interesting.

MY BARACK OBAMA

Creating an event on Barack Obama's social network is... well, really easy. I mean, really easy. The designers behind this site definitely seem to grasp the fact that Obama's network will be used by masters and neophytes alike, and their design choices reflect an understanding of how both groups operate.

Upon signing in to your network pages, a button click will take you to your event portal, which shows you what events you've signed up for, what ones you've attended in the past, and how to set up an event of your own. Clicking the creation button brings you to the event setup page, where you'll determine the location and type of event you'd like to host. Would-be hosts are given a list of event types to choose from, along with simple descriptions of each type. This makes the selection process quite simple, which in turn must do wonders for the site's internal organization system.

Once the initial step is out of the way, things open up a bit. Like most social networks that offer event setup, Obama's site is fairly open and customizable. The setup categories are organized in a simple "What, When, Where" format, a style that would be uncomplicated for even the most novice networker. One thing that Obama's site has that is missing on Facebook (at least in my experience) is an email alert system; depending on your preferences, the site will automatically remind anyone signed up for the event a certain number of hours prior to the start. As someone who often slogs through email lists doing this kind of thing by hand, I can tell you that this sort of added touch is immensely handy.

CARE2

Care2's approach to events is different from any other social network that I've come across. The site splits its "Get Togethers" into two categories: Events (which consist of traditional physical gathering) and Action Days (which are collective calls to action unrestricted by physical location). This approach is convenient, especially when it comes to coordinating large groups of activists or volunteers.

The Events page is set up similarly to all other basic social network event managers; however, Care2 does have a unique trick up their sleeve. Included with all of the necessary event management tools is the promotion features, which allows event creators the option of advertising their gathering, free of charge, to up to three groups of which the creator is a member. This feature allows for maximum visibility while still maintaining the sense of community and boundaries that makes Care2 the network that it is.

On the other side of the coin, the Action Day option, while less detailed, is arguably easier to execute. Without the physical constraints/demands of an event, an Action Day request requires less commitment from potential participants. Action Days are also eligible for Care2's promotion feature, allowing even more people to get in on the same low-impact call for action.

I think this may be the first time since I've started this examination that Care2 has come out on top of Facebook (which, although it wasn't analyzed in this particular article, does not feature anything remarkable in the way of event management). Since the Care2 community is built on the premise of political action, I guess it stands to reason that organization might be one of their strong suits.

Strategy Friday - An Email, from Teddy? How Thoughtful!

2008-02-15T11:09:00.000-08:00

Today, while checking my email at work, I noticed a curious-looking address line near the top of my inbox. Titled simply “I’m with Obama”, the email was (apparently) from none other than Mr. Massachusetts himself, Senator Ted Kennedy. My excitement untempered by experience or expectation, I clicked through the email to find… a fundraising request from the Obama campaign.

Shock! Outrage! Basic disgust!

All joking aside, the email (one of many from the Obama campaign in the past few days) got me thinking about the use of famous names in address lines of campaign emails. I mean, when it comes right down to it, who does the campaign think they’re fooling? No one actually believes that the emails they’re receiving are from Ted Kennedy/Michelle Obama/Barack Obama, so why go to all the trouble of placing their name in the address line? Why not save it for the subject, and just have the address simply read “Obama for America”?

Or, more importantly, is there a chance, in some roundabout, upside down way, that this kind of marketing strategy actually works?

Fortunately, an ongoing conversation in my other inbox provides some insight into the method behind this madness.

In a recent conversation on the Progressive Exchange listserv, the topic of email attribution and names was given a full examination. To make a long set of emails short, the folks at ProgEx generally agree that using names is generally ok a) in high-profile campaigns and b) when the "sender" is already famous anyway. This combination seems to suggest that familiarity will outweigh any questions of authenticity. However, the folks on the listserv urged caution. One participant pointed to the dangers of email from less well-known or low-profile non-profits getting filed as spam due to its unclear sender status. Another pointed out that such a scheme, especially when used in a "man on the street" style situation, might require valuable subject line space to be used just to clearly communicate the organization's purpose behind the email.

In other words, when it comes to mass emails, most organizations would do well to simply play it safe and include their organization's name in the "From" line of any official communications.

Barack Obama and Ted Kenendy, on the other hand, can play by an entirely different set of rules.

BOOK REVIEW: Constituent Relationship Management: The New Little Black Book in Politics

2008-02-13T12:55:00.000-08:00

Wow. What a difference a week makes. As you might recall, I spent last Wednesday's post reviewing MoveOn.org's 50 Ways to Love Your Country, a handbook designed for political laypeople and would-be weekend activists everywhere. This week, I present: the polar opposite.

While MoveOn's book was great for energized citizens looking to begin their life as political activists, it lacked teeth when it came to actual, on-the-ground political tech strategy. That's where the the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet comes in. In their series of free reports (available here, naturally), they cater to exactly the opposite audience that MoveOn's book is designed for. These documents are for people who are interested in the inner workings of political and activist organizations, especially when it comes to technological impact. In other words, they're not what you might describe as "light reading".

The insider approach works well for the task at hand, though. While I lack the required organizing experience needed to understand some of the finer points the report tries to get at, I'm familiar enough with the general "state of the state" to appreciate the arguments on a macro level.

When it comes down to it, it seems that organizations and campaigns have two choices when it comes to constituent relationship management (CRM). They can either treat their targeted audience/volunteers as piece of a business plan or broadcast model, or they can use the tools available to identify and build actual working relationships with the most dedicated volunteers. Clearly, the IPDI document favors the second option, and sets out to provide strategies and examples of how new software can be leveraged into campaign success.

The one conclusion that I found disheartening was the realiities of use and acceptance of online CRM systems. The report basically concludes that the vast majority of political campaigns or organizations have very little incentive to switch to newer, more innovative CRM means. That leaves underdogs and fringe candidates as the typical ideal adopters. While this still leaves developers with a fertile proving ground, it would be nice to see what kinds of advances might be made in an arena that was less disposed to change resistance.

In the end, I have a feeling that I'm going to get very familiar with IPDI's reports in the weeks to come. I have two more on tap for class, and am eyeing a third that looks like interesting... leisure reading.

Jesus, I really am a grad student, no?

Political Video Tuesday: John.He.Is

2008-02-12T09:14:00.000-08:00

As TechPresident's Joshua Levy pointed out yesterday, this next video is so meta, it hurts. And I love it.

I'm telling you, man. It's all about user-generated content. I mean, name the last memorable online political video or advertisement you saw that was paid for or developed by a campaign itself? The Mike Huckabee/Chuck Norris video comes to mind, I guess, but that was memorable precisely because it played upon the DIY/meme culture inherent to the Internet. Other than that, though, nothing comes to mind.

Certainly, people have tried. You might've seen "Hillary and the Band", Hillary Clinton's grab at the youth vote from a few weeks ago. It has all the hallmarks of what the kids like, right? Ironic Photoshopping! Rock and Roll! The Blogs! Right. It's about as inspiring and/or entertaining as it sounds. Witness:

Clearly, strategists and campaigns have witnessed the power of the Internet as a content delivery system. Why they haven't been able to replicate the success found by other, independent sources is a question whose answer is going to make someone very rich someday. My guess? It all goes back to authenticity. Commercialization be damned, the Internet is still a populist place. Netizens (*cringe*) have finely tuned bullshit meters, and can sniff out pandering from miles away. Huckabee's video worked because his campaign demonstrated familiarity with this fact and decided to play along. Clinton's video failed because hers didn't.

Social Network Update IV - Get Active

2008-02-11T13:27:00.000-08:00

It's Monday, so that means it's time to check in with Barack Obama's progress in the world of social networking. Today, I figured we could take a look at how easy it is to get involved in offline campaign events using the tools and information found on each of the social network services. Since online organization is only as useful as its real-world effects, organizational power matters. As usual, we'll consider Facebook first.

FACEBOOK

As I've mentioned in previous posts, Facebook's two most popular Obama groups engage in some useful division of labor: "One Million Strong for Barack Obama" serves as the campaign's information repository, while the newer "I Endorse Barack Obama, and I'm Telling My Friends!" is more geared towards explicit calls to action. Naturally, this leads to different sorts of action opportunities found in each group.

Visitors to "One Million Strong..." will find, tucked among the seemingly endless rolls of links towards the official site, opportunities to engage in all of the volunteer actions found on Obama's own social network site. From phonebanking to donation matching, no form of help is left unrepresented or unsanctioned. In fact, that may be the one knock against this group's usefulness. All of the links found here point users towards Obama's own site, reducing the Facebook group to an unnecessary middleman. While this makes sense from a political organizing standpoint, offering some Facebook-exclusive opportunities would go a long way towards justifying the existence of this group past its use as an advertisement for Obama's (in this case) rival network.

Over at "I Endorse...", things are a little more grassroots-y. Instead of focusing on the volunteer opportunities already available on the official campaign site, "I Endorse..." is more concerned with Facebook-based activism and endorsement. To this end, they provide guidelines for Facebook messaging campaigns, create unique events for each Democratic primary contest, and offer state-specific door hangers and graphics that feature their endorsement message. While these efforts might not reach the same amount of people as the official campaign communications (EDIT: As of April, the membership numbers of the official group versus this one are close to the 10-to-1 range), they represent an interesting approach to delivering unique action opportunities. Say what you will about MoveOn.org, but their mobilization efforts are always worth talking about.

CARE2

Things on Care 2 are... not much different from things on Facebook, at least in regards to activism opportunities. Aside from linking to official campaign events, Care2's largest Obama group currently offer no organized activism opportunities on behalf of the candidate. Personally, I'm a little surprised by this, and wonder exactly why an active community like Care2 doesn't have a more energized, organized Obama fanbase. Is it something about the idealism that makes the idea of actual campaign politics unappealing? Or is it something about the candidate himself? Does anyone out there have any ideas?

Strategy Friday - Mo' Money, Mo' (Server) Problems for Obama.com?

2008-02-08T21:47:00.000-08:00

For political candidates, demand is the name, and goal, of the game. However, as with any desireable thing, too much demand can leave campaigns scrambling to catch up. After surviving Super Tuesday, Barack Obama's campaign has done everything in its power to spin the stalemate into a victory. Whether that strategy works or not, the fact remains that voters seem to be taking even more notice of Illinois' junior senator. Yesterday, I wondered exactly how the Obama campaign might handle this increased interest/scrutiny.

Well, it turns out that, at least where the Internet is concerned, the answer is "not all that well, really".

After this week's strong turnout, I decided it was finally time to open up my wallet for the Obama campaign. I went to their website's donation page, and... was greeted by a message letting me know that, due to the unexpected surge of traffic after Super Tuesday, the Obama campaign's website was experiencing technical difficulties.

Huh.

What a terrible time for a breakdown. I'll head back when the site is back up, but I wonder how many casual donors might've been turned off. Probably not many, but it's still a problem worth addressing. Having a reliable Internet presence won't win you the nomination, but it certainly won't hurt.

The way I see it, the answer to this problem is one of two things. Either:

a) the campaign wasn't properly prepared for the post-Super Tuesday wave of supporters.

or

b) the campaign was prepared; the wave of supporters simply exceeded their expectations.

For the candidate's sake, I'm hoping for the last one. With nothing decided, everyone's looking forward to a protracted fight, and every dollar's going to count. Obama has a natural advantage in fundraising; he boasts more non-"maxed out" donors than Sen. Clinton all while outraising his competitors to the tune of $32 million in Jaunary alone. Now, if the Obama campaign can find a way to allow it apparently eager donors to actually, you know, fork over even more cash, the system will be operating as expected.

Super Tuesday Special - Putting the "Aware" Back in "Delaware"

2008-02-07T21:32:00.000-08:00

By now, I'm sure you've all seen the results from yesterday's so-called "Super Duper Tuesday" primaries. For a day that was supposed to decide so much, things sure do seem to be pretty much where they started, at least on the Democratic side. Though the stalemate may be frustrating, yesterday's results satisfied me as soon as I heard the following sentence:

"CNN projects that Senator Barack Obama will win the Delaware primary".

At that moment, tucked in a booth at Bourbon, half-lit and shouting, rolling out of bed for a 5am drive up the northern slice of the Delmarva Peninsula seemed like a bargain price for the results that Wolf Blitzer was now sharing with the rest of the country.

To be fair, I'm not really that delusional. The five of us (myself, roommates Annette and Aaleeya, and ringleaders Gillian and JoJo) probably weren't terribly important pieces of Obama's plan to win Delaware. What we lacked in individual experience or significance, however, was bolstered by sheer numbers; there were many volunteers on the streets of Dover today, and all of the ones that I saw supported the same candidate.

We knocked on doors, mostly, in neighborhoods where kids from Georgetown wouldn't typically be found on Tuesday mornings. Or ever. Though we made our rounds early in the morning, everyone who answered greeted us with behavior that ranged from courtesy (at worst) to enthusiams (at best). Even though it was early, many had already voted.

Later in the day, we stood on the corners of busy intersections and waves the handmade signs we'd been provided back at campaign headquarters. Here, finally were the jeers that we'd been expecting all day. Once, an elderly lady rolled down her window and faked us out with a thumbs-up that turned quickly (and violently) downward as she passed in her car. Later, stopped at a long light, a bearded, ponytailed Harley cast-off and his (runner-up) trophy wife informed me that they were "Hillary people". When I asked if they might reconsider, he deadpanned a "Nope." before pulling away through the intersection.

We left earlier than we could've, after a day of Amish food and civic engagement. Most of us dozed on the way home, rousing as we neared the district in time to hear the radio reports of Obama's projected victory in Georgia. After the results started pouring in, it was off to Bourbon, where we celebrated victories and drowned sorrows in a crowd reminiscent of a March Madness game.

I'm not sure what last night means for the nomination. I do know that, whether getting out the vote in that nation's first state or reeling onto Wisconsin Ave. and shouting "I love Kansas!" after another Obama victory, I really did have the Super-est of Tuesdays.

BOOK REVIEW: MoveOn's 50 Way to Love Your Country

2008-02-06T07:33:00.000-08:00

Sometimes, it's a shame that MoveOn.org's name is so instantly polarizing that it renders most non-partisan discussion of its relative merits impossible. Idealogies aside, there are a great many things that MoveOn advocates that are healthy for politics regardless of party affiliation. Chief among these agendas is MoveOn's support of bottom-up, people-centric political action. In the book MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country, contributors from across the country offer stories that read like two parts instruction manual, one part Chicken Soup for the Political Soul.

Most of the advice offered by the MoveOn members responsible for the book runs the gamut, ranging from common sense reminders to tactical strategies on a host of grassroots activities. Ever wanted to know the most effective way to get your letter to the editor published? They've got that covered. How about strategies for voter registration drives? They're in your corner. Most forms of grassroots action are covered in short, simple, easy to reference chapters, making field use possible and profitable.

When I started reading this book, I figured that, with some of the names changed and a few different case studies here and there, this book could easily be adapted to serve politically-minded individuals from both ends of the spectrum. However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that the problem of adaptation might go deeper than some surface changes. I often get the sense that the political makeup of the right might discourage the kind of grassroots, can-do activism that you see so often on the left.

I know there are lots of angry conservatives out there, but I don't see that anger poured into citizen-centered activity. Rather, conservative outcry is often funneled through institutions, such as the National Rifle Association or Focus on the Family. This trust in the establishment brought me back to George Lakoff's concept of the right's reliance on the stern father motif when it comes to political action. Does that sort of framework prevent the same kind of community action that we see from the left? Or, are conservatives just not yet frustrated enough to take action? Remember, it took an impeachment of a president and an illegal war to stir the Democrats into high-profile action. The unfortunate reality is that we may only see conservative organization as a response to the goals that progressives are currently working to achieve. I guess Hinduism has that part right: it's all just one big circle.

Political Video Tuesday: Yes, We Can

2008-02-05T14:21:00.000-08:00

This is everywhere by now, but I'd feel like a bad supporter if I didn't link just one more time...

It's been a busy week around here, as my friends and I are trying to not so singlehandedly deliver the mid-Atlantic states to Barack Obama. We're in Delaware today (an experience which will get an entry all its own) and will spend the weekend working in the Potomac triangle of DC, Maryland, and Virginia. Plus, marvel as I resume my frightening trip into the world of online activism. BLAMMO!

For stories on all of that and more, keep on coming back.

Social Network Update III - Level of Discourse

2008-02-04T15:05:00.000-08:00

As my adventure into Barack Obama's social network presence continues, I figure it's probably long past time to explore one of the key components of any network group: the discussion board. Home to well-reasoned discourse and terrible, terrible trolls alike, discussion communities are often representative of the state of the movement. How would the conversations on Facebook differ from those on Care2, and what would that mean for the groups? Sadly, there's only one way to find out: we have to hit the boards.

FACEBOOK

Since there are many different social communities dedicated to Obama and his candidacy, I'll be looking at messages from two separate communities. The first, "I endorse Barack Obama -- and I'm telling my friends!", is an activist group that advocates direct support of and involvement in the Obama campaign. That being the case, you would expect the messages found here have a distinctly energized tone, for both good and ill.

The group is extremely new, having been formed within the last week, but already the messages cropping up seem to bear our my expectations. For instance, the first message that appeared when I loaded up the message board was an invective-laced accusation regarding Obama's apparent status as a Muslim terrorist. Though this well-intentioned fear-monger was quickly shouted down, it seems like this kind of thing is going to be par for the course going forward.

The community that is forming around this group handles the trolls and weirdos as best as they can, and uses the board mainly as a bulletin space for calls to action, announcements of milestones, and heads-ups for Obama-related events. So far, actually debate/discussion seems to fall more under the auspices of the older, more well-established Obama group "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)".

When I arrived at this board, I was expecting the worst, simply because... well, that tends to be what politics brings out in people. I was surprised to find that the board, with a few exceptions, was fairly respectable when it came to the level of discourse. Part of this comes, I suspect, from eagle-eyed moderation; as I perused, I noticed topic deletions sprinkled throughout the threads. The supporters who are here also seem to take trolls with a grain of salt: numerous threads are devoted to venting about everyone's favorite type of internet rabble-rousers. In one, a particularly proactive community member (and apparent fan of It's A Wonderful Life) suggests donating to Obama every time a troll posts.

In terms of topics for discussion, the board is currently in the throws of Super Tuesday fever. This post, which I chose because of its proximity to my destination for tomorrow, captures the general feeling of many around the board. Elsewhere, there are numerous topics devoted to frustrations regarding Obama's opponents; in particular, Hillary Clinton seems to be drawing the most amount of fire, well ahead of any Republican candidate. The distaste ranges from outrage (a post regarding alleged Clinton puush-polling in California) to tactical (a breakdown of Mark Penn's latest talking points) to downright Drudge-ian (an apparently shocking video that "the Clintons don;t want you to see!!!").

As a site dedicated to Obama support, there is very little room for a middle ground approach when it comes to Obama's chief rival. However, the board does show some sense of awareness when it comes to life in the world of online politics. This post, which may be my favorite of the ones I've read so far, contains a conversation about the role of trolls and agitators in these kinds of communities. Far from being self-exonerating, many of the messages contain admissions of trolling by board members on Clinton sites, and seems to reflect the belief that "everyone's doing it". Though the group's view of such behavior seems to be negative overall, most of them still aren't willing to grant Clinton, or her supporters, a break.

More surprising is the group's preoccupation with Ron Paul. Instead of focusing on Any of the Republican frontrunners, most messages about the GOP are in regards to the TExas congressman's longshot bid for the White House. From complaints about his supporters, to ways in which to win them over, the Facebook crowd is either swept up in the Paul "revolution" with the rest of the internet, or aware of the power that Paul's bloc wields as a potential swing group in the upcoming election. Whatever the reason, though, you have to admit that, for someone with no with no shot at the nomination, this guy's everywhere.

One thing that's lacking from the board (as far as I can tell, at least) is a strong presence of undecided voters. People don't seem to be coming here in order to figure out if Obama is their candidate of choice or not; the people who have chosen to be active in these groups all seem fairly set when it comes to who gets their vote. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does remove the possibility of non-partisan information/persuasion sessions.

Another possible problem with the Facebook forums is the lack of lingering threads. Most discussions that I found on the site were created within 76 hours of my first searches. Going deeper, I found that, in most cases, all messages found on the first few pages were new rather than ongoing. There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, a lack of old, or even sticky, threads leads to redundant posting, as newcomers attempt to assert (for the 37th time) that Obama is not a Muslim/white supremacist/anti-Christ/etc. Second, the value of new content overshadows the need for the kind of foundational posting that takes a message board from a bulletin space to a community. In this climate, the possibility for the lengthy debates found on other boards is lost.

Overall, the message boards of the Facebook groups are far less painful than I was expecting. While the occasional troll slips past the keeper, the community generally fulfills its goal as a place where Obama supporters can come to have their beliefs reinforced. Undecided voters who wish to participate would do well to do what I just did: lurk.

CARE2

It goes without saying that Care2 is a very different animal than Facebook. As a community of progressive activists, you would expect their message boards to be quite different from those found on a general use social network site. For the most part, however, the same concerns and content found in the Facebook groups is present in the Care2 forums, albeit in a smaller setting. The people who participate in the Care2 groups are, generally, against Hillary Clinton, for Barack Obama, and ready to do something to help the process along. Thus, the instances of troll abuse are low to nonexistent. If anything, there may be even more outrage present on the Care2 boards than the Facebook one. In one post, the topic starter takes an endorsement of Obama in the direction of a screed against lobbying and special interests. In another, an earnest citizen calls for the campaigns to remove race and gender from their arsenal of potential attack points. On the whole, the Care2 boards seem to be more focused on political discussions, with campaign minutiae taking a back seat to political discussion. That said, the topics discussed do not deviate significantly from those found on the Facebook boards.

However, in spite of their similarities, the Care2 boards do offer several differences from their Facebook counterparts, to both their credit and detriment. For instance, Care2 allows users to embed images within their posts, which allows for interesting visual aids in addition to inspired argument. However, this advantage is nullified by Care2's difficult-to-navigate dating system, which uses the "x days ago/x months ago" display style for archived posts rather than the easier, more explicit dating method found on Facebook.

In the end, the Care2 boards may be more civil than the Facebook ones, but their small size and scope renders them less useful for daily visitors than their Facebook counterparts. Though Care2 wins the battle on many fronts in the worlds of online organizing, the campaign forum fight can be more successfully fought on the larger, more well-organized Facebook boards..

BOOK REVIEW: Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

2008-01-30T22:53:00.000-08:00

To the majority of uninterested Americans, the name Howard Dean probably continues to conjure images of that red-faced night in January when the former Vermont governor’s dreams of victory in the 2004 presidential race evaporated in the wake of one ill-timed scream. However, ignoble ending aside, Howard Dean’s campaign for the presidency in 2004 was the backdrop for numerous lessons about the highs and lows of netroots campaigning. In their book “Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope: Lessons from the Howard Dean Campaign for the Future of Internet Politics”, former Dean ringleaders Zephyr Teachout and Thomas Streeter lead a gaggle of their fellow Dean staffers in a semi-narrative, semi-analytical examination of why the Dean campaign mattered both then and now.

If you had to take just one idea away from the Dean experience, it might be the notion that the primary force that drives any authentic political movement is a sense of purposeful action. The authors spend a substantial amount of time reminding the readers that, for all of the “Internet candidate” labels that were bandied about in the press throughout Dean’s campaign, the message only really found footing because it was tied to fundamental citizen involvement. The Dean campaign didn’t simply use the Internet as a cash register or a bulletin board; they identified the desire for community-based action and set about using the tools at their disposal to create such a system in a digital environment.

I was refreshed by the lack of irrational, starry-eyed optimism exhibited by the book’s contributors (not that I was expecting any, really). No one confuses the Internet with a strategy in and of itself; rather, they regard it as a powerful tool that, under the right set of circumstances, can circumvent traditional media roadblocks (name recognition, the “money primaries” of the early fundraising months), establish digital word of mouth buzz, and give voice and purpose to a large community of potential supporters. At every turn, however, the authors stress the importance of the circumstances rather than simply the tools themselves.

If Howard Dean’s message had been different, or come in 2007 instead of 2003, or if the United States hadn’t been gripped in the fog of post-9/11 hysteria that didn’t seem to dissipate until after the 2004 election, the campaign could’ve taken a very different turn in regards to both strategy and respectability. In the end, you get the sense that the relative successes of the Dean campaign were as much a product of the moment in history as it was of the new netroots revolution. Today, many of the Dean campaign’s risky innovations have become required, if overlooked, campaign tools. However, most candidates in the current field continue to exhibit an unhealthy lack of understanding when it comes to Internet campaigns. Ultimately, it seems that the Dean campaign’s legacy will be respected only when these tools receive the same consideration.

Political Video Tuesday: A Beer with Steve

2008-01-29T07:09:00.000-08:00

Just thought I'd pass along a great new ad for a great candidate. As Liz from the Progressive Exchange listserv puts it:

[Steve Novick] is a progressive Democrat running for US Senate in Oregon with a very grassroots campaign. This generated 28,000 hits in 24 hours, all from blog posts and people sending it virally. Now it's at the top of YouTube's political page for the day.

I think this is a great model for grassroots campaigns, activists, etc. to get the news out there. Because of this video post and its views, many mainstream media outlets have taken notice and written articles about this. People are buzzing about it around the country. It's amazing how a little Internet coordination in Portland, Oregon can make ripples around the country. Ah...my geekish heart just skipped a beat.

Well said. Also, here's the ad itself:

Social Network Update II - Surveying The Scene

2008-01-28T09:35:00.000-08:00

As I mentioned last week, I decided to take my support of Barack Obama online, joining the movements on Facebook and Care2 in hopes of finding out what all the fuss was about. In this, my first update as a user-activist, I thought I might offer some initial impressions on the culture and atmosphere of these two vastly different social networks.

Facebook

For the Facebook portion of my research, I decided to sign up for multiple Obama-related items to see how they did, or didn’t, interact with and influence one another. My list included the groups “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)” and “I endorse Barack Obama -- and I'm telling my friends!”, as well as applications like “Obama” (run by the campaign itself) and “Barack Obama Supporters” (built by an independent application developer). I also used Facebook’s relatively new “Fan” system to become a supporter of Barack Obama. After that, I let the lurking begin. Before I start participating in the conversation, I’d like to get a feel for exactly what the culture is like on both sites.

The first thing that you notice when you join Obama's groups and applications on Facebook is the sheer number of members that each one boasts. "One Million Strong" has over 400,000 members alone, while the more activist-oriented "Endorsement" group pulls over 40,000 of their own member. I'm sure these numbers overlap quite a bit, but they're still impressive.

Content-wise, each separate group appears to fulfill a separate function. "One Million Strong" is set up as a link clearinghouse; if you're looking for ways to donate, places to find news, or just a little more info about the candidate himself, this group is only too happy to send you on your merry way. This group also has the most active discussion forums of all the groups; there are currently over 15,000 Obama-related threads.

On the other end of the spectrum, the "Endorsement" group urges informed action instead of simply information by itself. From offering direct links to sponsored fundraising efforts, to providing template for creating your own door hangers and stickers, this group seems to be more grassroots-oriented than its other, bigger counterpart.

In terms of usefulness, the applications are a mixed bag. The "Obama" app is set up as an Obama news aggregator, updating continually with all of the Obama news that's fit to print. The others, however, seem fairly redundant. The "Supporters" group, built using the same template found on many second-rate TV show fan apps, is shoddy and unnecessary, and the Obama fan page rehashes much of the information found on all of the other sites. In the end, I think my focus will probably shift away from these last two pretty quickly, unless I'm given a compelling reason to pay attention.

Care2

It's safe to say that Care2 is an entirely different animal when it comes to social networking. While Facebook's activism and political opportunities are just a small part of the overall Facebook experience, Care2 operates under exactly the opposite ratios. If you're not politically (or rather, progressively) active on Care2, what's the point of joining?

Surprisingly, there are relatively few Obama groups to be found on Care2. When I did my initial search, the first result that came up was a group dedicated to advocating a Kucinich-Obama ticket in 2008. Clearly, this ain't your father's social network.

I finally settled on joining the two biggest Care2 Obama groups. In Obama's Care2 world, big is a relative term. The first, "Barack Obama for America in 2008", covers roughly the same territory as its Facebook counterparts, albeit in a smaller, stripped down setup, and has around 600 members. The other "Barack Obama for President", seems a bit more activist-oriented, and boasts a membership of around 100.

How interesting. On both sites, there are specific groups for information and activism. So far, I haven't seen the two go hand-in-hand. I wonder what that says about these communities?

BOOK REVIEW: The Tipping Point

2008-01-23T07:08:00.000-08:00

To master the power of fads, trends, and movements, you simply have to think like a virus. That is, according to Malcolm Gladwell, at least. In his book The Tipping Point, Gladwell seeks to explain exactly what makes some ideas take off and causes others to languish in obscurity. While the book tends to be written with marketing in mind, the implications that it has for the world of online politics are still numerous.

One of Gladwell’s chief observations is that, regardless of the marketing technique or tipping points surrounding a given trend, content is still king, especially in the early going. People might catch on to a clothing trend once the audience of connectors, mavens, and salesmen are on board, but there has to be something that draws in those groups to begin with. Without the initial interest, whether it’s generated by quality or quirk, the idea has no chance of taking off. This is especially important in the political world, where the field of both online and offline messages gets more crowded every day.

Gladwell’s examples run the gamut, from expected (the resurgence of Hush Puppies in the 90s fashion world) to surprising (the sudden decline of New York’s staggering crime rates). However, they each have one thing in common: the all tipped because of subtle nuanced factors far outside most observers’ fields of vision. For Gladwell, the devil is in the details, and having the ability to recognize and monkey with these particulars is generally the difference between a successful campaign and a fair to middling one. For online organizers, this means that things like button placement on a website, or the delivery style of actors in a campaign ad might be all it takes to make or break an otherwise politically sound message. While scary to some, this concept also insures that those who’ve trained themselves to spot such problems are guaranteed a spot in the process.

Speaking as a keen-eyed, would-be political consultant, I find that heartening, at least.

Social Network Update I - Introduction.

2008-01-21T00:02:00.000-08:00

As part of my current course in Internet politics, I've been given the task of evaluating the use of social network sites by campaigns through firsthand experience. Over the next few weeks, I plan to track my involvement in a political campaign using social networks as the main means of communication and organization. Below are my choices for social networks.

Facebook

My first love in online social networks, Facebook really has all that people in my age range can ask for in terms of establishing an online presence. Though the addition of innumerable (and often shoddy) user-made applications has cluttered Facebook's once-sleek appearance, this social network still hasn't lost the reputation that it gained in the heady days of .edu-only admission standards.

Care2

I just finished signing up for Care2, and my first impressions are fairly positive. The profile options are comprehensive and accessible at the same time. I particularly enjoyed the "see choices" option for categories like issues and interests. The tag clouds that pop up are solid ways to gauge the popularity of issues on Care2, and also serve to jog the memory when it comes to thinking of personal preferences. I know that I always go blank when presented with so many blank boxes; Care2 presents a nice cure for that particular syndrome.

Since I don't have a very large network of friends who are currently members of Care2, I'll be casting my net wide in terms of the groups I join. For the purpose of this project, however, I will be primarily focusing my efforts on observing the level of activity and discourse surrounding Barack Obama's campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. While I am confident that Obama's campaign will continue throughout the spring semester, I will also pay close attention to the Clinton campaign and, in the event of Obama's defeat, will shift my focus accordingly.

Now that introductions are out of the way, all that's left to do is join some groups, make some friends, and get active. Let's see what happens.

And now, this.

2008-01-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

The Wizard of Glover Park will return after these messages.

Project Portion: Complete!

2007-12-05T12:38:00.000-08:00

Today marks the end of the compulsory section of this blog, but that doesn't mean the job is done. Once my project is finished (which, ideally, should come around 6pm this evening), expect posting to return soem time tomorrow afternoon. We're 29 days from Iowa; around here, the fun's just starting.

In the desert of the writer's strike, a fake news oasis.

2007-11-30T13:28:00.000-08:00

Poll: Mitt Romney Is Candidate Most Voters Want To Get Into Bar Fight With

See you on Monday, if not sooner.

EVENT REVIEW: Republican YouTube Debate, 11/29/2007

2007-11-29T10:13:00.000-08:00

Well, that's finished.

The Republican YouTube debate is in the books, and, I must say, it wasn't nearly as painful as I expected it to be. The producers seem to have learned from some of their mistakes at this summer's Democratic equivalent, because, on the whole, the number of questions asked or produced by assholes or internet crazies seemed to be way down. Kudos, also, for avoiding what I christened the "Stupid Fucking Cartoon" trap. Of all of the questions asked last night, I only counted three that I would place in this category. Plus, one of them featured this guy:

...which I'm basically ok with. I got home a bit late from class last night, so I missed taking notes on two of the early debate highlights. Right off the bat, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney proved their Presidential mettle by... arguing like fishwives over home improvements. Uh-huh. Then, our favorite supervillain and yours, Tom Tancredo, proclaimed that, when it comes to immigration, all of the candidates are trying to "out-Tancredo Tancredo". Nobody out-crazies Ophelia, either.

After that, we have real notes, so... well, here they are:

8:35 - I'm not sure what the question was, but Mitt Romney is suffering from a fierce case of sweat-lip. Bickering on live television will do that to a guy, I guess.

8:37-8:40 - A question comes up regarding spending cuts. Thompson evades, looks hangdog. Ron Paul goes state's rights. Huckabee scores big with a pledge to boot the IRS. Pretty standard, and a nice way to get myself acclimated.

8:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #1!

8:41 - John McCain is booed by Ron Paul supporters for... making rational point about foreign policy commitments. Watch out, because this becomes a trend, and quickly.

8:42 - Paul counters McCain's charges of isolationism with a right hook on troop donations. Back home, we'd've followed that up with a resounding "booyah", but here, Paul opts for looking spooked and pointing to the crowd. It's just a difference.

8:44 - We have a Tancredo sighting. The man has eyes like a shark. A SHARK!

Tom Tancredo in happier times.

8:45 - Giuliani responds to the charges leveled in this Politico story by saying that his spending was justified because there were, and I'm quoting directly here, "y'know, threats". My, what rousing detail.

8:49 - The video provided by Tom Tancredo's campaign features him having an imaginary conversation with Hillary Clinton. I'm sure imaginary conversations aren't all that uncommon when Tom Tancredo's involved. He follows up this corker by answering a question about the safety of Chinese imports with an impassioned stand against toy immigration:

It is illegal to import that kind of thing. The problem is, of course, no one really pays a lot of attention to a lot of our laws, with regard to immigration of both people and, now in this case, of course, items, goods and services.

Optimus Prime just wants a better life, Tom. Really.

8:52 - Thompson's video airs, and the long knives emerge. I know he's desperate and all, but I'm surprised he chose to go negative. Looking like a bloodhound in a man-suit can only give you so much credibility, and this kind of ad isn't helping in the push for more.

8:59 - Once again, we're getting boos for rationality. Giuliani's call for reasonable gun regulations almost gets him winged as 200 angry audience members lock and load at once.

9:04 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take One:

9:06 - The camera pans to Tom Tancredo, who wastes the unexpected face time by brooding like Emperor Palpatine. This man is my favorite.

Cue to 1:05, Jedi.

9:13 - There it is. The line of the night. Mike Huckabee cements his lock on the down-home, folksy wisdom vote with the following exchange:

Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

9:16 - Question You Won't See At The Next Democratic Debate, Take Two:

9:19 - The ad from the Romney campaign also doubles as a sleep aide.

9:20 - MVParents.com gets their numbers from the Search Institute. That's like going to eat at a place named Restaurant. It's just not done.

9:23 - Giuliani's ad is up, and he goes for the humor vote. If King Kong likes him, he must be doing something right. Knocking over building, mostly, I'll bet.

9:24 - How do we repair our image in the Muslim world? Simple, say the candidates: attack more! I must say, John McCain owns the debate over the next few questions. If only he'd sounded like this the whole time...

9:27 - John McCain says "I said 'good day', sir!". Mitt Romney responds by reeking of maple syrup and old grease.

9:33 - McCain scores again, diffusing Iraq-Vietnam comparisons by noting that "Vietnam didn't want to follow us home". If not for Huckabee's earlier score, this might've been the night's most memorable exchange.

9:40 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2, and a solid run for JohN McCain, who concludes his power play by not only sneaking in a direct shot at his old nemesis, George W. Bush, but also reviving the old "straight talk" slogan that captivated us eight years ago. Man, that was a strong 15 minutes for the senator from Arizona.

9:47 - This question regarding gays in the military, while interesting enough in its own right, is made all the more interesting by the following fact: the gay retired Brigadeer General who asked the question in the first place, was later revealed to be a possible plant by the Clinton campaign. Here's a better recap, courtesy of Outside the Beltway.

9:52 - Mike Huckabee accepts the support of Log Cabin Republicans, noting that you can disagree about issues and still like each other. For his part, Mitt Romney accepts Log Cabin pancake syrup on all of his delicious waffles.

Really now. How is this...

... all that different from this?

Damning, this evidence.

9:53 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #2 1/2. Yes, I'm counting the dollar bill.

9:57 - Stupid Fucking Cartoon #3, because slideshows count for half a point. Huckabee regains some of his early debate thunder by suggesting we send Hillary Clinton to Mars, followed by numbers suggesting that, on the whole, African Americans might not find him completely repellent, sorta. Well, I guess you really gotta know your crowd.

10:04 - They're talking about infrastructure, and I'm starting to fade. Even Ron Paul's starting to lose his normal, elf-like appeal. Oh, he's also ruling out an independent run, for now, which pokes a fairly large hole in my theory that Paul is actually just a robot controlled by Ross Perot deep within Antarctica's own Fortress of Solitude.

10:07 - What better way to end a debate on serious issue than with a baseball question? Shockingly enough, this is the one issue that Mitt Romney has made up his mind about. Well, you gotta have something, I guess.

WINNERS
Mike Huckabee - In the span of three weeks, this guy's gone from the candidate with the funny name to leading in Iowa and looking more presidential than most of his counterparts combined. He stayed above the fray, answered thoughtfully, and actually showed some signs of humanity. I may not like his policies, but his prowess for televised debate is unquestionable. It wouldn't surprise me if tonight's broadcast served as a new jumping off point for the Huckabee campaign.

John McCain - Where has that been this whole time? McCain's gravitas factor was way up tonight, and his extended time in statesman mode towards the end of the debate might remind people of why they liked him in the first place. Though it's probably too late to mount a serious challenge at this point, it's nice to see McCain recapture some of that old fire, if only for one evening.

Ron Paul - If fundraising and applause meters are to be believed, Ron Paul is having a rosy campaign indeed. While a general lack of name recognition and the novelty factor of Paul's grassroots, libertarian-tinged campaign hindering Paul's poll numbers, he's still proving that there are huge swaths of the Republican Party not being addressed by the other candidates.

LOSERS
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani - The frontrunners took some serious heat early and never fully recovered. Now, guys, I know it's tempting to one-up each other on national television, but it doesn't make for very entertaining, or informative, programming. Sniping and interrupting isn't presidential; it's not even polite. Whether it's shifty practices and policy positions (Romney) or not-so-secret liberal leanings (Giuliani), both of the frontrunners fell rather flat this evening.

Fred Thompson - Did he even show up? For all the hype surrounding his candidacy announcement, Fred Thompson has done little to nothing to excite voters about his run to the White House. Tonight was no different. He went negative early, but no one else took the bait, he got out-folked by Mike Huckabee, and, when he actually chose to respond, his answers seemed vague and evasive. Not a great way to revive an already-flagging campaign.

So, that's that. Did anyone else watch this thing?

YouTube Republican Candidate Debate: Video preview

2007-11-28T13:23:00.000-08:00

The Republican YouTube debate is this evening at 8PM EST, and I'll be providing a recap with some notes and thoughts late tonight or tomorrow. Until then, enjoy wading through some of the candidate questions that could very well be featured in tonight's debate (except probably not). I'm sure the judges did.

Because, really, when I think of the Republican party, the first things that spring to mind are cartoons, furries, and Dick Armey.

If you feel like killing the rest of your evening, by all means, start here.

Internet celebrities to government: WTF?

2007-11-26T12:28:00.000-08:00

I touched on net neutrality and its growing impact on the campaign landscape a couple of posts back, but I would be remiss if I didn't share this video. Apparently, it's been around for a while, and I'm not sure how it took me 18 months to see it, but that's how it goes. If this is old or uninformative to you, I apologize. However, if I know my audience (and I think I do), then the cameos alone will be worth your price of admission.

Interested? Let Leslie Hall of GemSweater.com tell you more.

Now there are two causes I can support: keeping the internet free, and lovingly chronicling some awful fucking sweaters. Head to their website, linked above, to learn how you can get involved.

And, just for fun, here's a less political recap featuring a few other net residents.

Campaign killers? Net skulduggery and political ads.

2007-11-26T11:48:00.000-08:00

A quick programming update before I hop the next train back to Washington. Wednesday night, after the no doubt farcical exchanges of the Republican YouTube debates, CNN will actually air a program I'm interested in for once. Entitled "Campaign Killers", the show is a part of CNN's Broken Government series. This particular episode deals with negative campaigning and its effect on the American political process. While I'm not exactly sure what bases they'll cover over the course of an hour, a press release from earlier this month promises some interesting coverage:

The documentary examines political mudslinging, the history of negative advertisements and the role of the Internet as a viral weapon in politics today.

Nice to hear the Internet mentioned in the same breath with important political discourse that doesn't primarily involve fundraising. One of the most interesting media developments in the last couple of election cycles has been the ease with which individual citizen can personally affect a candidate's campaign. Before this, voicing your opinion required organization; even as late as the 2004 presidential election, the major sources of ads and media, outside of the campaigns themselves, were PACs and other interest groups. Now, anyone who has access to a camera and an opinion can, with a little talent, a few well-placed connections, and some luck, produce a video that can garner national attention over night. While this kind of impact seems like a logical step towards greater political freedom, it remains to be seen how the candidates and their campaigns can exploit this new communication tool.

Sadly, the good old days.

One obvious double-edged sword in all of this is the potential for responsibility-free negative campaigning. Traditionally, campaign ads have an easily-traceable origin point. While people can debate the intentions and validity of groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they remain an identifiable group. Placing the advertising online at sites like YouTube makes that kind of background check almost impossible. Candidates could, conceivably, run a proxy smear campaign online with much less chance of immediate repercussions than they could using the Internet's broadcast-style predecessors. Though the people have more power, they also have a higher chance of attracting focused manipulation on the part of the candidates.

How do we deal with this?

Or this?

The political world has a lot of catching up to do when it comes to internet campaigning. At worst, the focus on user-generated campaign materials signals a potential excuse for laziness on the part of the political strategists. After all, why would they spend valuable campaign dollars on internet marketing when we have supporters who will do a decent job for free? However, that kind of attitude risks ignoring the innovations possible when investment dollars and talented minds collide. So far, this election has shown that the internet isn't going away. Whether or not a candidate can exploit the true potential of internet organizing and advertising in the next 12 months, however, remains to be seen.

That said, have a personal question about negative campaigning: why are the Democrats so bad at it, especially in the general election? My friend Lisa and I talked about this last week, and we couldn't figure it out. During the primaries, the knives come out, and the vitriol spews. Just ask Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards. Once the nomination is sewn up, though, a strange thing happens: everyone becomes nice. All of the anger and frustration that the candidates aimed at each other disappears once the real opponent enters the room. What's the deal? Is it a moral highroad issue? Are Republicans just meaner? What's behind the Democrats' lack of teeth when it comes to advertising?

Your opinions are, as always, welcome.

Linksgiving - A Bounty Indeed.

2007-11-22T20:07:00.000-08:00

Happy Turkey Night, everyone. After an entire day devoted to food, football, and lounging like a hedonist, I'm actually looking forward to doing some work for a change. I might have a couple of entries cooked up for the weekend (or even later tonight, depending on how much energy this Colt-Falcons game takes out of me), but until then, it's time to give thanks. Here are a few things that make my world better these days:

- The Capitol Limited. For my money, the best way to travel the DC-to-Chicago route.

- The Vice President, for cracking a joke that's actually sort of funny, coming from a cyborg deathbot.

- CNN, for giving me more things to laugh at.

- The Internet, and all of the interesting freedoms it promotes and defends. Something tells me that I'm not alone on this one. You hearin' us, candidates?

- Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parades, from today and yesterday.

- James Wright. For this, and others:

Autumn Begins In Martins Ferry, Ohio

In the Shreve High football stadium,
I think of Polacks nursing long beers in Tiltonsville,
And gray faces of Negroes in the blast furnace at Benwood,
And the ruptured night watchman of Wheeling Steel,
Dreaming of heroes.

All the proud fathers are ashamed to go home.
Their women cluck like starved pullets,
Dying for love.

Therefore,
Their sons grow suicidally beautiful
At the beginning of October,
And gallop terribly against each other's bodies.

Substantive reporting returns when my turkey coma wears off. Until then, have a wonderful night, and leave some things you're thankful for in the comments, if you're so inclined. If not, I'll see you on Black Friday.

Mike Huckabee Supporter-Watch 2007: It gets better.

2007-11-19T22:09:00.000-08:00

First, there was Chuck Norris. Then, Ted Nugent. Now, finally, Mike Huckabee has hit the trifecta of roughneck celebrity supporters. His latest find? The Nature Boy himself!

From CNN:

Huckabee is getting ready to rumble: wrestler Ric Flair, a.k.a. The Nature Boy, is supporting the former Arkansas governor in his bid for the White House.

CNN has confirmed the former WWF and WWE star wrestler is on board with Huckabee, and will co-host a campaign tailgate with the candidate at the South Carolina vs. Clemson football game on Saturday afternoon in Columbia, South Carolina. More details are forthcoming.

Man... I'll say it again: we're entering the realm of real entertainment. With that in mind, have a few Ric Flair clips to brighten up your morning.

Just another fist.

2007-11-19T07:59:00.000-08:00

Holy damnit Christmas. Say what you will about his policies, but right now, at this very moment, I'm in love with Mike Huckabee.

EVENT REVIEW: The American Forum, 11/14/2007

2007-11-15T11:33:00.000-08:00

Last night, I attended a taping of The American Forum, a panel discussion series hosted by American University's School of Communications. Entitled From Grassroots to Netroots: The Impact of the Internet and Other Media on Politics, the program featured a panel made up of, among others, Josh McConaha and Cyrus Krohn (the e-campaign directors for the DNC and the RNC, respectively), as well as Adam Green (the campaign director of MoveOn.org). For anyone interested in hearing the program for themselves, it's available online right here, and broadcast on Sunday evening at 6pm on WAMU (88.5 FM).

For those of you who're too lazy for radio, here are a few of the key points brought up during the program:

- When asked to comment on the success of online campaigning, many people on the panel were quick to point out all of the great things being done with politics on the internet. Cyrus Krohn, however, gave a more realistic assessment: when it comes to the effectiveness of internet campaigning, it's still too soon to tell. He mentioned the ebb and flow of site popularity, and the fact that we still don't have enough net-mediated elections under our collective belts to begin drawing serious patterns. With all of the techno-utopianism that accompanies a program like the one I'm in, it's always nice to hear someone admit that, really, we're still not exactly sure what we're doing.

- Later in the panel, Krohn had his feathers ruffled by Adam Green's comments regarding MoveOn's lack of a right-wing equivalent. Green's argument was that, while progressive causes like the ones championed by MoveOn tend to lend themselves well to grassroots organization, the right tends to support causes better suited to what he referred to as a top-down "culture of disempowerment" that favors interests and politicians over voters. Though Krohn offered some interesting thoughts on MoveOn's Petraeus ad, I felt that the real counter-example came from Dottie Lynch, who pointed out the internet's role in organizing the Harriet Myers backlash from a few years ago. She noted that, while it may not be considered grassroots, the Republican presence on the internet is still a powerful one.

Also, as someone in my group pointed out, it's ironic that Green would criticize the Republicans for lacking bottom-up, grassroots chops. For all of its plays towards citizen activism, MoveOn is primarily run through ordered, top-down direction.

- I was also glad to hear someone bring up 10Questions.com and their recent success regarding Barack Obama and net neutrality policy. For anyone interested in the site, check it out. It really might be the antidote to those dog and pony shows that are the YouTube debates. Also, for anyone interested in Barack Obama's stance on net neutrality and other technological matters, check out this question and answer session from Wednesday evening.

- Finally, the panel also had some interesting views on the viral video phenomenon that I touched on last week. Most of the panelists were split when it came to deciding if these easily-disseminated, unscripted moments were good or bad for the political landscape. Jeanne Cumming claimed that the threat of embarrassment would cause candidates to stick to the official message more, rendering them lifeless, while Green claimed that this new form of citizen journalism would lead to a "cleansing of the idiots", weeding out the slow and uninformed. Cummings also brought up an interesting point: in the case of viral videos, the subject matter is always negative. Why do you suppose that is? Why don't videos of Barack Obama helping old ladies across the street or Mitt Romney getting cats out of trees make the rounds on YouTube? Are we just not interested?

Anyway, that's your preview. To hear the panels opinion on the youth vote, the internet's role in local organizing, user-generated mudslinging, and more, tune in.

Urr... urgh.

2007-11-13T20:06:00.000-08:00

I think I have the hantavirus. Posts are back tomorrow.

BOOK REVIEW: Unleashing the Ideavirus

2007-11-07T11:41:00.000-08:00

One thing that I've been really rotten about when it comes to this whole blog assignment is actually keeping up with the mandatory postings. For instance, did you all know that I've been charged with weekly book reviews? No hands? I'm not surprised. Well, in the interests of catching up, here's the first of four belated book reviews.

Today's book is Seth Godin's much-lauded Unleashing the Ideavirus. When I first started reading this examination of the new start of marketing in the 21st century, I was expecting something akin to the starry-eyed proclamations usually reserved for something Scott McCloud dreamed up after reading old Katzenjammer Kids strips backwards while double-fisting purple drank. That is, something revolutionary in its unreality. However, Godin's ideas remain firmly grounded in the implementable, and, though sometimes colored by a little irrational exhuberance, remain solid strategies for marketing in a new landscape.

One of the ideas that really struck a chord with me was Godin's thoughts on access in relation to products and ideas. He notes early on that "one of the dumbest things marketers do is put artificial barriers in the way of trial". While it seems like common sense to say that, in order to become popular, a given object or idea has to be available to the right people at the right time, we don't have to look very far to see that companies still haven't quite grasped this inevitability, especially in the digital marketplace. From the recording industry to Major League Baseball, old-school organizations continue to frustrate users and drive down sales through the use of antiquated, protectionist DRM schemes. Instead of protecting the integrity and pocketbooks of the artists and corporations who use them, these obstructions of use and ownership are simply fueling a consumer-led backlash. Why buy from iTunes when you can slip over to eMusic and get mp3s that are actually yours?

Where have we heard that before?

As Godin point out in his book, digital media, when freely distributed, is one of the best ways to get people hooked on not just a song, but a band's entire output. This kind of loyalty is exactly the type of behavior that Godin looks for in taste-makers from all venues, people that he refers to as "sneezers":

Music execs know that you’ll pay nothing to hear a song on the radio, but if you like it, you’ll gladly pay $15 for the CD. And that if you love the CD, you’re more likely to pay $40 for tickets to the local concert, where you might be converted to a raving sneezer, much more likely to infect your friends and neighbors with raves about the band, the song, even the souvenirs!

Now that I have some of that DRM-rage out of my system, I'd like to turn my focus onto how all of this applies to politics. Now, I think it's safe to say that, generally speaking at least, creating and maintaining the same kind of ideavirus that Godin talks about is harder to do in the world of politics than it is in the world of product marketing. As an example, here are videos from two memorable viral videos that have emerged in the political world over the past few years: the "Hillary 1984" clip, George Allen's "Macaca moment", and

Clearly, these clips had some impact: the 1984 clip generated some serious buzz and cost its creator, Phillip de Vellis, his job at Blue State Digital, while Allen's slip was used deftly by his opponent, Jim Webb, to sway voters in Virgina's ultra-close Senate race (which Allen went on to lose by a razor-thin margin). What made both of these videos so powerful was precisely the thing that is the hardest to recreate: spontaneity. No one scripted the macaca comments, and no one hired de Vellis to make his commercial. Both events occurred outside the realm of planned marketing/image-making, a world which was then forced to respond. While examining the strategies that each campaign employed after the release of the videos may be telling, it ignores the most important part of the equation: the lightning-in-a-bottle nature of most videos.

Godin tells us that, when marketers beat people over the head with ads and come-ons, they tend to be ignored. However, in national politics, a land of ideas and heavy scrutiny, there isn't much room for developing secret campaigns. If you're not found out and laid bare to begin with, chances are good that your plan will be identified strongly enough with marketing strategies that many people will be turned off. For a viral video to really work in politics, it has to come from someplace outside of "the system". Fortunately, as citizens become savvier with net video technology, more and more of these homebrewed political commentary clips will pop up. Of course, it then becomes an issue of weeding out the good from the bad, but the blogosphere hasn't had much of a problem so far, so it's unlikely it'll develop one out of thin air.

Take that, Andrew Keen.

The real problem comes when they people don't want to talk about the same things that you want to talk about, or when the wrong people are doing the talking. Going back to some of Godin's ideas, it's fine when a candidate has the support of influential sneezers who are out there taking their message to the streets, but what about candidates who are on the outside looking in? How does a campaign drum up grassroots support (and content) without creating a little of its own first? I don't know the answer, exactly, but that's why I'm not the one writing the books.

Of course, this doesn't take into account attempts at politics-related humor that go viral. In cases like this, standard rules apply, I guess.

However, other sites have tried to blend humor with genuine campaigning. Some of the people behind the "Obama Girl" video, including actress Amber Ettinger and writer Leah Kaufman, are on record as willing to use the viral credibility earned from their first video to develop other videos across candidate, and party, lines. Call it viral-for-hire, I guess, though I have a feeling that the good feelings earned from the initial video could wear off quickly if we're faced with eight or nine more.

The curse of the one-trick pony?

Godin is right when he notes that maintaining these kinds of viruses is challenging work:

People no longer clamor to dance the Hustle or to get into Studio 54. They don’t visit the once hot jennicam website or pay a premium for front row seats at Cats. Why? Because instead of institutionalizing the process of improving, honing and launching new ideaviruses to replace the dying ones, the “owners” of these viruses milked them until they died.

Does anybody need Giuliani Girl? Probably not. By focusing on replicating the past instead of innovating towards a new, desirable form of video, sites like BarelyPolitical.com guarantee themselves a short cultural half-life. Again, it's an interesting challenge.

The challenge of replicating viral marketing in political forums might be best-suited for local or state elections, where focused campaigns, a narrower market, and a relative lack of big media scrutiny might afford political marketers some of the mystery and allure needed for these ideas to catch on. Nationally, however, hoping the replicate artificially the power of naturally-occurring viral media is a disaster waiting to happen.

For more on Seth Godin, check out his site for more insights and optimism. And, for those of you who love political videos, here's a countdown of the 10 best, according to these guys.

I'll be back later with my reviews of The Interplay of Influence, The Cluetrain Manifesto, and News That Matters, along with the usual pithy banter.

Debating the debates: a cry for mercy.

2007-11-05T14:10:00.000-08:00

My last post introduced my dissatisfaction with the clusterfuck that is the primary debate system, but simply putting up a video of Dennis Kucinich being even weirder than usual didn't satisfy my need to vent about, and perhaps propose a solution to, this latest problem on the political landscape.

To put it simply: the debates that we've seen so far this season have, plainly, ranged from unsatisfying to downright detrimental. On the low end of the problem spectrum, the YouTube debates wrapped style over substance in the attractive papers of voter interaction. What should have been an interesting exercise in political participation devolved quickly into a cavalcade of schmucks and amateur actors all trying to out-quirk each other in hopes of their 15 minutes. The point, as they say, was missed.

Now, in the latest example of gimmick politics, we've been presented with the latest ratings-grabber: the Lightning Round! What a great way to derail an otherwise passable debate: with outmoded gameshow strategies!

Seriously, enough. Enough now. This has to stop. I'm as politically charged as the next Georgetown student, but if I have to see one more waste of airtime like this, I'm buying a yurt and moving to Montana. Instead of engaging in real discussion and, you know, debate, the candidates are once again reduced to soundbites. Oh, and often, too. By my (read: Wikipedia's) count, the Democrats and Republicans will, by the end of the primary season, have combined to engage in 36 of these dog and pony in just under nine months.

Wow.

As I stated earlier, I'm all for debate. However, to really catch my interests, it has to fulfill two very important criteria: it must be fair, and it must be in-depth. The primary debates tend to miss both of these by wide margins every time they hit the air. The sheer number of candidates, coupled with the media's maddening desire to turn everything into a horse race, tends to lend itself to exclusion rather than inclusion. Front-runners get most of the airtime, while great policy minds like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are left to fight their way out of their very own Catch-22 - they don't get the coverage because they're not popular, but part of the reason they're not popular is because no one's talking about them. Thus, you end up with these disadvantaged candidates resorting to sniping or outlandish statements as means of getting ink.

As you might've figured, the well-reasoned portion also goes out the window as soon as you start factoring in the numbers. With all of these candidates trying to make their own mark on a discussion that covers a wide range of topics, the audience ends up with all breadth and no depth. Nowhere is that more apparent than the latest inclusion of a Lightning Round, but it does get worse. Does anyone else remember the debates this summer that actually made use of show-of-hands voting to settle the important issues?

Fuck me. Are we in 6th grade again?

All of this talk about the problems with the primary debates reminds me of what Neil Postman said in Amusing Ourselves to Death: television, at its core, is primarily an entertainment medium designed around selling advertisements. Whenever you try to mix it in with serious discourse, bad things tend to happen.

Now, while I don't completely agree with that sentiment in regards to this situation (these debates tend to be covered without commercial interruption, for instance) I still think that we can do better. An, in the interest of not bitching without offering a solution, I think I have a few suggestions.

1) Themed debates. This would completely clear up the problems inherent in trying to cover all of the issues in every debate. Maybe, in addition to a few all-purpose debates scattered throughout the season, the candidates could participate in debates centered around narrow, predetermined topics. You could tune in to Hillary Clinton explain herself in "The Democratic Healthcare Debate", for instance, or listen to John McCain pop a few veins in his forehead during "The Republicans present: The War in Iraq". This type of setup would not only would this give the candidates ample time to touch on the finer points of a given debate without the distraction of other topics, but would also aid viewers who are more interested in some topics than others.

2) Showdowns. The media wants a horse race? Let's give them one. What if, instead of pitting all of the candidates against each other during every debate, the networks instead devised a system of head-to-head debates between each of the candidates? It could be like watching the NBA draft: each match-up could be randomly selected, giving lesser known candidates the chance to steal the spotlight from one of the big guns. Who wouldn't love to see Barack Obama get into an honest, lengthy debate with Dennis Kucinich? Once everyone's gone around once, maybe there could even be a second round featuring different pairings. With the natural lure of competition that's so attractive to our sporting culture, we could even open this whole thing up to voting. Perhaps an expert panel, plus some input from the public, could decide who moves on and who plays for consolation. Why not have a debating tournament? Maybe it's the NFLer in me, but if we can do this every weekend in January at high schools around the country, why can't we do this with our politicians?

Are these the perfect solutions? Of course not. Do they open up some interesting possibilities? Maybe. Are they better than what we've got so far? Well, obviously, I think so. What about you?

PS: For those of you really interested in the whole debate scene, check out this section of the New York Times' coverage. Personally, as someone who's had to slog through transcript after transcript from these kinds of events, this service is remarkable.

He may be a crazy, but he's our crazy.

2007-10-31T11:57:00.001-07:00

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.

Serious posts resume this evening.

Boing Boing makes you think about the internet

2007-10-30T20:48:00.000-07:00

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.

FEMA, wildfires, and fake news. Oh my.

2007-10-29T13:18:00.000-07:00

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 fake news, 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?

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VIII

2007-10-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

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.

Link Round-Up - Shirking Academic Responsibilities edition

2007-10-23T11:45:00.000-07:00

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.

- Slate takes a revealing look at the candidates’ use of those new-fangled social network sites. You know, the kids and their MyBook…

- The jesters at Indecision 2008 present their own look at the primary system.

- The Economist likes Al Gore… but not for president.

- Finally, Heath Shuler’s back in his element – losing football games in Washington.

It's nice to be good at things.

- I think I’m developing a big-boy crush on Adrian Fenty.

And finally, from the “If You Love It So Much, Why Don’t You Marry It” department, a few solid articles from Washington Post’s better, onliner half:

- Trippi to Edwards. The ghost of Howard Dean approves.

- Rudy Giuliani may, in fact, be Hillary Clinton. Don’t let him tell you different.

- Mitt Romney and the Liberal Mormons. Coming to a garage band convention near you.

- Spotlight on… Indiana?! Hey, I’ve been there!

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VII

2007-10-23T10:38:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck is a dickpocket.

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part VI

2007-10-19T12:30:00.000-07:00

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.

I am not above ridiculing the children of my enemies.

2007-10-17T11:25:00.001-07:00

There really are no words. I could try to be funny, but, just... well, let me lay it out for you. Once, you had this:

And it was good.

Now, thanks to the magic coupling of songwriter/poet Leslie Satcher and "the Celine Dion of country music", you can have this.

To steal one from my boy Yakov, what a country.

Happy New Year! Now, vote.

2007-10-17T10:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Of course, according to Dick Morris, the whole thing could be rendered moot if a certain someone chooses to run. Personally, I'm pulling for this guy.

Homeward Bound

2007-10-11T21:35:00.000-07:00

Like this, but much, much smaller.

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.

Link Roundup: Too Hot For October Edition

2007-10-10T12:09:00.001-07:00

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part V

2007-10-09T22:33:00.000-07:00

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part IV

2007-10-08T18:34:00.000-07:00

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.

I wonder what Rick Santorum's up to these days...

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part III

2007-10-04T19:03:00.000-07:00

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part II

2007-10-03T12:52:00.001-07:00

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.

YouTube Reviews - Republicans, Part I

2007-10-02T21:28:00.000-07:00

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.

GTG 2 NAVY! BRB!

2007-09-28T14:24:00.000-07:00

This just in:

Kids? Different from adults.

You don't generally need government-sponsored reports to help you arrive at this kind of dangerous, outside-the-box conculsion... unless you're the Navy, which reveals this and more! in an unintentionally hilarious recruitment presentation picked up by Wired, Boing Boing, and other arbiters of online taste and culture. The report reveals that, among other things, kids are opting out of military service for what, at least according to the Navy, are either selfish or misguided reasons. Other pearls of wisdom include:

- Kids love the following: Green Day, Napoleon Dynamite, and defunct social networking sites.

- "His buddy list spans the globe. Best friend may be Chinese."

Could be this guy. Probably isn't.

- When you take a generation of American kids, couple them with motivated, involved parents, and add in a few dashes of relative peace, domestic economic stability, and, oh, I dunno, a lack of forced conscription, what do you think you get? Anyone. Navy, go ahead. Yes, that's right. "Narcissistic praise junkies". Very go-... wait, what?

Still your father's Navy.

Aside from being blessedly out-of-touch, this presentation also reveals the military's willingness to at least consider the effects of social technology on their future recruits. Though still generally dismissive of most "new-fangled" trends like online social networks, media integration, and the private sector, whoever put this presentation together obviously realizes that something big is coming as this new generation prepares to reach vote-n-kill age. Whether or not they can assemble a crack team of culture vultures who can really "rap" believeably with today's, or tomorrow's, youth is anyone's guess.

Oh, who am I kidding? The Navy is critically boned. Goddamned MySpace.

Curiously, just as I was about to post this, I noticed a related article on Salon.com's politics page. So that's what this sudden preoccupation with MySpace is about! Pretty sneaky, sis.

The Pinocchio Test

2007-09-25T08:01:00.000-07:00

The ethics of political persuasion is a business of fine lines and stretched truths. Whenever I tell people that I'm majoring in political communication, the general response involves lots of knowing "aaaaaaah"s followed by some form of the phrase "you're going to be a spin doctor!" While this outcome isn't a forgone, or even desirable, conclusion, it's the first thing most people think of when they hear about someone trying to craft and mediate political messages. Alongside "rhetoric", "spin" may be one of the most villified terms in the political world.

This is not my job.

With all of this in mind, I'm glad to see that some people out there are helping popularize the other function of an education in political communication: the ability to debunk your opponent (or, in this case, all of the candidates at once). This is the aim of the washingtonpost.com's Fact Checker service. Intended to "shed as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving important national issues and the records of the various presidential candidates", the site offers in-depth breakdowns of candidate claims and advertising, along with relevant outside information that the original sources neglected to mention. In the end, each story is graded using the "Pinocchio Scale", a ranking system designed to guage just how big of a fib the original sources were offering.

While readers should come for the commentary (which includes a point-by-point examination of the MoveOn.org ad covered on this very blog a couple of weeks ago), they should stay for the chance to get in on the action themselves. The traditional investigative journalism on the site is augmented by a blog-style push for collaboration. As the group's mission statement notes -

We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups, and the media. Once we have posted an item on a subject, we invite your comments and contributions. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on the subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know. We also want to make sure that the authors of questionable claims have ample opportunity to argue their case. We plan to issue our own opinion on factual disputes (see Pinocchio Test below), but it can be revised and updated when fresh evidence emerges.

Suddenly, the public has control of media watchdog powers and, what's more, they don't even have to go to the trouble of creating their own blog as a vehicle for sharing their ideas. The site not only acts as a clearinghouse for political advertising, but it does so through the collective efforts of journalists working in tandem with anonymous citizen researchers. As I said last week, the Washington Post seems to grasp the concepts of Web 2.0 better than some of their counterparts, and this lends further credence to that idea. Whether or not that translates into a major shift in media practices, or whether or not enough people are paying attention to make a difference, remains to be seen.

BOOK REVIEW: Dan Gillmor's "We the Media"

2007-09-19T14:22:00.000-07:00

In We the Media, journalist Dan Gillmor applies his knowledge of the promises and pitfalls of current technologies and applies them to the burgeoning field of citizen journalism.

Originally published in the summer of 2004, Gillmor's work emerged during the first presidential election in which digital media, created by both campaigns, traditional news sources, and voters themselves, played a significant role. There was, and still remains, a general optimism about the power of blogs to shape and influence at the same rate as traditional corporate media sources, and Gillmor embraces that sentiment heartily. Whether it comes in the form of resistance to oppressive governments (such as the cases of bloggers in China and Iran) or unwillingness to swallow corporately-funded "objective news", the message found in We the Media is clear: if you don't like what's being said, say something yourself.

Gillmor's focus isn't limited merely to blogs, however. He takes into consideration how tried-and-true online communities like discussion groups and bulletin boards have taken on new significance in the age of media without borders. He also looks past the sensationalized coverage of peer-to-peer networks and identifies them for what they really are: the best way to transmit ideas and materials anonymously online. While that may not seem like an important distinction in the United States, its potential for use in areas of state-sponsored oppression is limitless.

There, perhaps, is the problem with all of these wonderful new mediums: with limitless potential comes limitless chance for misuse. Gillmor spends a fair amount of the latter half of his book popping the techno-utopian bubble by pointing out the inherent danger of a powerful media tool like the internet. One of the best sections deals with what happens to false information once it is released into the media world. While Gillmor's examples are engaging and illustrative, I could've used even more coverage on this topic. There are still people out there who believe everything they read on the internet, and any insight on how to increase society's critical barometers would've been appreciated.

in the end, We the Media serves a vital purpose, acting as a primer on new media, a llaunchpad from which further, in-depth study may spring. Gillmor's enthusiastic embrace of online, independent reporting is tempered by a sense of caution, but his general point holds true: in the right hands, grassroots cyberjournalism is the future of media.

ASSIGNMENT: Media Interactivity.

2007-09-19T06:30:00.001-07:00

As part of my coursework in this semester's Media and Politics class, I'll occasionally be posting the results of some assignments given throughout the year. Last week, I looked at three different media outlets to see just how much audience participation they allow on their websites. The results are, as follows:

As one of the premier sources of transatlantic news, The Economist is known as much for its dry wit as it is for its in-depth coverage of news and foreign affairs. However, a trip to its website reveals that one area the newspaper won't be revolutionizing is reader interaction.

Like many of its print brethren, The Economist seems to be at a crossroads when it comes to citizen journalism - or even citizen opinion. One visit to its online edition reveals that interaction between the newspaper and its readers is sparse, and confined to only certain sections of the website (and thus, only certain types of content).

For instance, you won't find any comment sections offered on main section news articles. The news is presented exactly the same as it is in the print edition; the stories are still informative, certainly, but the lack of new, easily-implemented features makes the whole magazine seem a step behind. Sure, online comment threads can get pretty snarky, and The Economist does have a reputation to think about. However, protecting a publication's integrity at the expense of innovation might do more harm than good.

To be fair, The Economist does offer a reader response forum - sort of. To actually express your opinion while reading The Economist Online, you're limited to the comments pages of the newspaper's blog section, a "lightly moderated" section of reporter-run musing that occupies a lonely link under the website's "Opinion" heading. While these blog pages are nice enough, they're no substitute for allowing comments and debate on main page stories. Readers seem to agree; one look at the paltry comment numbers on most of the blog entries suggests that the newspaper's current efforts might be in vain.

CNN.com has always been my online news outlet of choice, mainly due to the fact that it's fast, easy, and has a short URL. When I want hard-hitting insights, I'll look elsewhere, but for daily briefings, CNN is king.

Much like The Economist, CNN does not offer a comment section on its main news articles. However, CNN has taken the leap into the world of citizen reporting, launching its I-Report service last summer in an effort to give voice - and video - to would-be journalists across the world.

After poking around I-Report for an hour or so last week, I realized that the service, while useful, suffers from wild inconsistencies in both quality and content. For every story on the Katrina rebuilding effort, there are two about fireworks or balloon races. In fact, out of the 43 stories on the main I-Report page when I checked this morning, 18 were related to weather or natural phenomenons, and only six dealt with "hard" news topics. The problem isn't that CNN allows people to post general interest stories; the problem is that these stories aren't separated into different sections or otherwise distinguished from one another. By giving general interest stories the same billing as hard news, CNN seriously undercuts I-Report's potential impact.

Elsewhere on the site, readers can participate in discussions of user-generated blog content (once again, moderated by reporters and generally steered towards non-political topics), or even browse photographs of other I-Reporters. While CNN probably won't be replacing Facebook or Myspecae any time soon, its attempt at fostering some sense of community is admirable. Though flawed, I-Report is generally well-executed and, assuming that its moderators learn how to strike the proper balance of news and feature stories, has the potential to impact the news-making process even more.

Finally, we come to my newly-adopted hometown newspaper, The Washington Post. After reviewing the web presence of an international newspaper and a cable news station, I figured that covering a major American newspaper would pretty much complete the hat trick.

The Post got on my good side right from the beginning by actually offering comment sections on all stories, not just the ones in watered-down blog sections. Users have to register and agree to a terms of service agreement before posting, in order to ensure that he discourse remains civil. For their part, the readers don't seem to mind: one story about an upcoming Republican candidate debate, posted early Wednesday morning, already had 109 comments by 11 am.

Another interesting feature offered by the Post is the "Save and Share" feature found within stories. The small grey box contains prominent links to Digg, del.ic.ious, Reddit, and the bookmarking services offered by Google, Yahoo!, and Facebook. The Post's is the first site I've visited that not only allows, but actively encourages the sharing of stories via aggregators like those mentioned above.

The Post doesn't stop there, though. They've still got three section of blogs (Political, Opinion, and Local), moderated discussion groups, and even a feedback section where readers can "yell, scream and otherwise exclaim about what the Post did wrong this week". Unlike the other two news outlets, where reader interaction comes at a premium, The Washington Post seems more than happy to led readers a voice in their online edition.

While The Washington Post is the clear winner in the interaction competition, CNN's I-Report, through it's emphasis on multimedia, still has the potential to provide the most moving, influential citizen reporting out there. Utilizing either of these ideas would also benefit The Economist, which seems unwilling to abandon their trusted broadcast model in favor of a newer, more interactive approach.

Don't tase me, bro.

2007-09-18T18:54:00.000-07:00

Some fast observations from today's Washington Post:

- It looks like Newt Gingrich is the latest politician to hop on the Second Life bandwagon. While the idea of an explorable online campaign headquarters is appealing, I really wish we could get some of the candidates to establish a presence in an online world more condusive to debating the tough issues. Azeroth, for instance. Who wouldn't pay to see Clinton and Giuliani hash out their differences amidst the unforgiving winter of Alterac Valley? Shoot, I'd pay twice.

Lok'tar, fiscal conservatives.

- If you haven't seen this, where've you been?

Now, granted: Andrew Meyer is, by all accounts, a complete dingus. Some reports peg him as a perennial attention-seeker who was known for interrupting campus events, an idea which the Post uses to explain why people were clapping for the cops before UF's finest started going all "Rodney King II: Electric Boogaloo" on the kid.

Also granted: the kid may have resisted arrest, which technically gives the cops full discretion regarding the nastiness level warranted.

That being said, what? Has it really come to this? I mean, six cops? Was that really warranted? I'm all for acting in the interests of public safety, but this is just the limit. Testing out the equipment on a politically charged but otherwise harmless kid is completely out of line. Bravo to the students of the University of Florida who are taking action in defense of Meyer. Big ups, Gator Nation.

Funny, too, that people like this never seem to get the shit kicked out of them, but people like this do.

About the only positive outcome of this whole thing is the entry of the phrase "Don't tase me, bro" into the English lexicon. Somewhere, a t-shirt is being made.

- Finally, the Democrats are coming close to completing their much talked-about Atlas Project, a comprehensive information gathering effort aimed at streamlining the campaign strategy process by adding in a hefty dose of history. Does it strike anyone else as odd that a project like this had to exist at all? Shouldn't the Democratic Party have been archiving all of this stuff from the beginning instead of traipsing through basements in Michigan? And, why stop at 15 states? Frankly, I'd like to see this whole project extended to include the rest of the country. That way, the Dems could devise some sort of moderated, intra-party strategy wiki for use in election efforts for years to come. Obviously, the sheer fact that they're having to undertake such a project shows that the need is there. Action, therefore, is a must. Well, I think so, at least.

And now, a word from our sponsors. And John Edwards.

2007-09-14T12:22:00.000-07:00

Keith Olbermann called it "a signal moment in the history of American television". In the fight to respond to George W. Bush's address Thursday night, John Edwards decided to cut out the middleman by, well, paying a different middleman. Edwards hedged his bets and, in an unprecedented move, purchased two minutes of commercial airtime devoted solely to responding to, and in most cases rebutting, the president's address.

This subversion of traditional information channels is a hallmark of Joe Trippi, the Democratic strategist whose reinvention as an Internet-savvy campaigner is credited with the early successes of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. Trippi, who now serves as a senior strategist with the Edwards campaign, is known for pushing the envelope. However, this most recent move by the Edwards camp brings up serious questions regarding the ever-changing role of advertising in politics.

In the days of the 24-hour media cycle and highly focused online campaigning, traditional political advertising may be facing an "adapt or perish" situation. Edwards' latest move seems to support this. With broadcast channels on the decline, television advertisements may become more specialized. In Edwards' case, his commercial granted him a guaranteed forum in which to express his ideas to a wide audience. Though his move may be out of need rather than the spirit of innovation (Edwards currently sits in a distant 3rd in the latest AP poll, behind front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama), it's intriguing nonetheless.

Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of advertising as a form of discourse. While the idea that anyone's free to take out a commercial and express their views, the prohibitive costs (the New York Times article linked above notes that Edwards' two minute spot cost upwards of $100,000) mean that it's still the rich who dictate what goes on the air and what doesn't. However, it would be interesting to measure the effectiveness of highly focused, targeted advertising in local elections where candidate airtime might come at less of a premium. What doesn't work for John Edwards might prove might effective for an alderman or councilwoman near you.

Another thing that bothers me is the idea of lending gravity to commercial airtime. Edwards' choice of a commercial medium as the forum for disseminating his message seems to bestow a sense of credibility that may not be completely warranted. Whenever the line begins to blur between serious discourse and this...:

...the ramifications could be far-reaching.

Also, feast.

Who Wants to Marry the President?

2007-09-11T11:12:00.000-07:00

For the candidates in the 2008 presidential election, it appears the honeymoon is just beginning. In a move that signals the emergence of a new form of social voting blocs, a new political website, BridesDecide.com, hopes to "humanize the candidates and provide a forum for brides-to-be to discuss politics and the upcoming elections".

Now, I must admit, when I first heard about this idea, I may have snorted indignantly. On the surface, it seemed like this site was part of the anti-politics movement that places personality in front of policy when it comes to voting. The country's voters seem to have been voting for the guy they'd want to have a beer with for the past few elections, and we all know how that's turned out:

He'll tell you when he's had enough.

So, it was with great trepidation that I made my first visit into the world of bridal politics. I must say, all things considered, it wasn't nearly as surreal or uncomfortable as I'd expected. The site itself is well-produced and easy to navigate and, despite the name, the bridal content actually takes a backseat to things like policy comparisons and political discussion forums. In fact, BridesDecide.com offers some of the most engaging candidate profiles that I've seen so far in this election.

While the issues discussed are primarily those that appeal to female voters, they are treated with depth and insight. As a quick reference point for candidate positions, the site is actually quite handy. If you can look past the bridal trappings, there's actual content underneath.

Rumplestilskin gets the girl.

Perhaps more importantly, this site is an interesting example of the ways in which voting bloc are beginning to evolve thanks to the emergence of the social internet. Instead of joining communities bound together by common political beliefs, we're now seeing people join together based on other, politically neutral factors. Obviously, a site like BridesDecide.com will attract members of both parties to an even playing field where they can exchange ideas without being labeled as a homer (agreeing with a political site's philosophy) or a firebrand (a dissenter who shows up just to make trouble). By sharing a common bond outside of the political realm, the people in the BridesDecide.com community are more likely to start from a place of agreement regardless of political affiliation. Clearly, this may become the preferred means of political action on the internet, and could also help redefine how people look at themselves as voters.

Has anyone heard of any other communities like this that serve other social communities? Leave links in the comment section.

MoveOn takes it straight to the playground

2007-09-10T12:54:00.000-07:00

Seriously?

This is the best we've got?

Speaking as someone who bought into the spirit of community activism that the people at MoveOn.org offered in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election, it's really disappointing to see how out of whack their sense of the country's political climate has become. The same people who once decried the negative advertising from groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as "outrageous" continue to confound their own goals by engaging in the same kind of juvenile, school yard name-calling that they claim to be above.

Does this mean that the people at MoveOn don't have valid points to make? Of course not. General Petraeus deserves to be under the fullest scrutiny we as a nation can muster, and if something shady is, in fact, going on, then by all means, let us know. Just find a better way to do it than with a New York Times ad that apes "Seinfeld" without retaining any of the original's charm, timeliness, or yadda yadda yadda.

These guys? Clever. Churlish PACs? Not quite the same.

What pisses me off the most is that stuff like this plays directly into the hands of those people who like to paint progressive Democrats as godless, baby-spiking milquesops. Ads like this don't advance the conversation; rather, they make that little vein on Harry Reid's forehead come that much closer to just ending it all right in front of everyone and force the party to trot out old standbys like John Kerry to dismiss the ad's claims as "over the top". Are they? Again, not necessarily. But, by putting them in the context of vitriolic attack ads, MoveOn forces the Democrats to tiptoe and vacillate instead of focusing on the actual particulars of the Iraq mission. You catch more flies with honey than you do with lame puns, and MoveOn needs to hurry up and realize that. To steal from "Seinfeld" yet again, these ads just give the Republicans all of the hand in the relationship. The Democrats? No hand!

Hand: tough to get.

Man... I hate it when they make me agree with John Kerry. It's really no way to start the week.