With no Mike Gravel at last night's debate, kudos to Dennis Kucinich for keeping things watchable.
Deftly handled, Barack.
Now that's what I call must-see TV. Also, that "lightning round" gimmick was bullcrap; it may even warrant its own post. For more fun with Dennis, check this out. Maybe the whole unhinged lunatic act is cosmic payback for affronting the gods with his disproportionately hot wife.
For those of you that don't while away your hours over at Boing Boing, here are a couple of interesting stories that merit discussion at a more appropriate hour.
In the first, anti-blogger and technology critic Andrew Keen receives a dressing down at the hands of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas Zuniga over some of the statements made in Keen's new book, The Cult of the Amateur. Now, it's not the argument that interests me: clearly, based on the examples Zuniga offers, Keen wasn't exactly careful in his research (at least in terms of Zuniga's biography). However, Keen's reaction to Web 2.0 catches my attention. Is there any chance he's right? Are we all just communists pecking away at the established order to the ruination of everything? Should we all just shut up and trust the professionals to do their jobs? I think you might have an idea which way I'm leaning, but I'll elucidate more tomorrow.
Closely tied to this topic is Barack Obama's recent promise to support efforts to pass Net Neutrality laws if he's elected president. Given some of the tech talk that we get from politicians, it's nice to see a high profile candidate actually engage an issue from a relatively well-informed vantage point. Keeping the Internet free of corporate pricing packages and usage restrictions is key to the survival of online discourse as we know it. Between Obama's support for Net Neutrality and Chris Dodd's vow not to budge on telecom immunity shows that at least some people are paying attention. But what does this all mean for users? I have some thoughts, but they'll be up, alongside my review of the Romney campaign's YouTube channel, in the morning. Until then, I'll leave you with this: a potential vision of the future.
Image lifted from Something Awful by way of Boing Boing. Look here for the original article, or poke around here for more on Boing Boing's coverage of the debate.
Just when you think that it might be time to remove the "much-maligned" moniker from in front of any and all references to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), something like this happens:
On Tuesday, FEMA held what was called a "news briefing" on the California fires, but the questions asked did not come from reporters. They were asked instead by FEMA staffers.
Apparently, the FEMA briefing was called with little lead-time and reporters didn't get there fast enough. Instead of acknowledging that reporters were not there they apparently pretended and even used the typical practice of calling a "last question."
The briefer, FEMA's Deputy Administrator Harvey Johnson, did not indicate that the questions were coming from staff who were in essence playing reporters. Six questions were asked and the phrasing and subject matter were not typical for a news briefing give and take.
And, just like that, all of the good feelings generated by the agency's admittedly-capable handling of the California wildfires gets sucked down the drain because some PR guy thinks he's smarter than the Internet. I mean, honestly: how did anyone think that this was a) a good idea and b) something that no one would notice, point out, and ridicule? I mean, sure, the public loves fakenews, but not when it comes from respectable sources with a potentially vested interest in skewing the results. It's amazing, really. This is exactly the kind of thing that bloggers love to pounce on. Could a trained professional really not see this coming? Plus, where's the harm in disclosure? Admitting that the questions came from staffers filling in for reporters would've been far less embarrassing than getting caught faking the news without any regard for public interest.
If anything, this whole situation puts a spotlight on our collective media literacy. If you didn't think you had to be careful about your sources before, here's all the proof you need. Looking behind the curtain during these kinds of gaffes is interesting, because they're easy to spot. But how much of this kind of manipulation and/or incompetence floats by unnoticed? If you'd seen the video last Tuesday, would you have noticed something was up?
Though the damage has been done, the response by FEMA and the White House has been satisfactory, I guess. FEMA fired Pat Philbin, the PR guy who was responsible for the conference and was set to take over PR duties for the director of national intelligence (oh, the irony). The White House, bastion of media liberty that it is, lightly condemned the conference, noting that "it is not a practice that we would employ here". Wow. When the Bush Administration thinks you've gone to far, how must that make you feel?
I'm about as sick of these guys as you are, trust me. What figured to be a two week project has now stretched on towards three, and it's time to put the fork into the remaining Republican candidates and their YouTube offerings. If only more of them were betting men, like everyone's favorite gambling Martian, Tom Tancredo, the field might already be thinned out and I might actually be done with the first part of this little survey.
Oh, also: we're up to Rudy Giuliani.
FACT FILE: RUDOLPH GIULIANI ACCOUNT NAME: RudyGiulianiHQ NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 217 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 2,580 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 678,347 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 868,332
Now we're getting somewhere. After weeks of reviewing also-rans, cranks, and full-fledged internet phenomenons, we've finally arrived at the promised land of political campaigning: the electable candidate.
The first thing that struck me when I visited Giuliani's page was the sheer number of videos his campaign had to offer, especially in comparison to some of his fellow candidates. Simply put, there are too many clips here for any reasonable person to watch in even a few sittings. However, I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. For one, it's evidence that the campaign is actively updating the site; though it may be off-putting for first time visitors, it gives subscribers and long-time supporters reasons to come back. By the same token, this devotion to large amounts of content also gives the candidate more freedom to post different sorts of clips. For instance, Giuliani devotes a few posts to clips containing still images matched up with some of his radio ads. While those clips tend to be the least popular of the content offered, it's interesting nonetheless to see updates go in new directions.
Giuliani probably has the highest name recognition of any Republican candidate, but that doesn't stop his campaign from driving the point home further in the titles of his videos. Generally, when the clip involves a brief statement of the candidate's position, it's labeled "Rudy on..." or "Rudy believes...". By Placing the candidate's name and position in the titles, the campaign gives viewers a quick reference point before the video itself even plays.
One area that has serious potential for effective growth is the campaign's "Running with Rudy" series. Designed to give viewers an inside look at Giuliani on the campaign trail, the clips are narrated by staffer Dan Meyers, who looks like a Balls and Shaft pledge and exudes all the charm of a box of crackers. With all of the policy-minded videos and attempts to remind everyone of what an awesome politician Giuliani is, the campaign seems to be forgetting to give adequate coverage to Giuliani the person. These videos are a great idea, rockin' 80s guitar intro aside, but the execution is all off. Though the handicam style is meant to reflect the on-the-road aspect of the coverage, it often comes at the expense of any sort of decent production value. In many of these clips, I can barely hear/see the subject at hand, and often find myself bored as a result. Also, some of these clips barely show Giuliani at all, rendering the candidate an afterthought as Meyers bores people to death talking to NASCAR officials and video operators. Investing in some better equipment, a coherent shooting strategy, and a more sympathetic host might make these videos more entertaining, more enlightening, and potentially more useful.
Those brief stumbles aside, the Giuliani has put together a pretty impressive YouTube page. With a plethora of videos covering everything from celebrity endorsements to policy issues and every point in between, Giulinai's channel is a prime example of what a frontrunner with money and commitment can do with an outlet like YouTube. Though still treating the site as the next step in the broadcast model, Giuliani's page stacks up well with those of his Republican competitors. Whether or not it actually breaks any real ground is up for debate.
Mitt Romney's the last Republican we have to cover. Then, it's on to the Democrats. Also, in the interim, I'll explain my idea for how to put some numbers to all of this research. I think I have a good idea, but I'll leave that up to you.
Before I forget, I have things to give you. Here's what I'm doing instead of homework.
- Barack Obama finds himself in the middle of a flap regarding an age-old tale of gay-bashing, gospel singing, and South Carolina campaign rallies. Earl Ofari Hutchinson has more.
- This just in: Glenn Beck is still a douchebag. I dislike him more than most people.
That has nothing to do with today's post, but it's really all the intro I need before getting on with the show. Speaking of shows... haven't I seen this guy somewhere before?
Excuse me, are you... Fred Thompson?
FACT FILE: FRED THOMPSON ACCOUNT NAME: fredthompson NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 34 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 708 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 48,211 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 134,738
While Thompson's numbers aren't exactly gaudy (yet), they certainly have the potential to move in that direction despite the candidate's late start. According to the tracker at TechPresident.com, Thompson recorded a 3.2% increase in video views last week, second only to netmaster Ron Paul (5.3%) and the suddenly-interesting Mike Huckabee (5%). Not bad for a guy who's only officially been in the field since September 5th.
So, we can see that people are watching, and in increasing numbers. But, what exactly are they seeing? Why, I'm glad you asked.
You get... clever movie puns!
Debate clips!
And lots and lots of responses to challengers!
That seems like quite a bit, right? In fact, responses to challengers on the left account for roughly 18% of Thompson's video content. That's pretty substantial, especially compared with the numbers on Thompson's more direct "Ask Fred" series of clips...
...which currently make up only around 9% of the candidate's content. While the run-of-the-mill debate clips and media appearances that make up the majority of Thompson's content all deal with his stance on particular issues, you have to watch all of them to figure out which clip covers which issue. The same goes for the challenger response clips: viewers are generally presented with some version of the opponent's view before they get to see Thompson's stance.
For a late-entry candidate trying to make a name for himself in an already-crowded field, more clearly labeled, Thompson-centric, policy-driven clips might serve as a better foundation. Addressing the other side is a valuable tool, but it's not necessarily one to build a media campaign around.
We're down to two Republicans left, and we'll be dealing with at least one of them before the end of today. Which one? Well, you'll just have to wait and see.
Wow. What a week it's been. I'd like to start by offering my condolences to recently reviewed Senator Sam Brownback, who announced his withdrawal from the presidential race today. Relic of the culture war, we hardly knew ye.
Now is not the time for tears, however, and we must press on. Revived after a week of loafing, here's today's featured candidate. He's a grizzled old coot, a former POW, and helmsman of the Straight Talk Express.
John McCain, come on down.
FACT FILE: JOHN MCCAIN ACCOUNT NAME: JohnMcCaindotcom NUMBER OF VIDEOS: 80 NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS: 1,683 TOTAL CHANNEL VIEWS: 491,644 TOTAL VIDEO VIEWS: 622,444
The first thing that hits you when you visit John McCain's corner of YouTube? Gravitas. Yes, it seems that McCain has the market for seriousness cornered. Whether it comes in the form of a somber black template, his stark campaign logo, or video clips peppered heavily with grainy black-and-white footage from McCain's days in Vietnam, the campaign seems fixated on maintaining a sober, focused appearance. In fact, I would argue that McCain's campaign is the first one I've looked at to use YouTube as a true image-builder rather than just as another media channel. Design goes a long way, folks.
In terms of content, the videos hit all of the McCain high points: strong, stay-the-course military plan, ethics reform, and a smattering of mandatory Republican issues like gun control and the role of faith in politics.
Though they've only uploaded 80 videos so far, McCain's campaign has done an effective job of mixing candidate-produced advertisements with media coverage, on-the-ground campaign footage, and policy ruminations. After viewing McCain's videos, I've come away with a far clearer picture of all facets of the man, the solider, and the politician. While the videos don't make me agree or disagree any more than I already did, they do provide a clear, well-rounded picture of the candidate. Once I actually look at the numbers in terms of content type and overall percentage, that conclusion can be illustrated more conclusively.
I don't know why I'm so surprised that McCain's people did such a good job on their YouTube assignment. After all, they work for the man behind the best bus in all the land. It's unfortunate that their efforts haven't translated into better numbers for the candidate or his related site; then again, a snappy website alone won't win any elections.
Tomorrow, I'd like to knock out most, if not all, of the final three Republican candidates. Fred Thompson, Rudolph Giuliani, and Mitt Romney: consider yourselves on notice.
