Carr and Steler (2008) cite that the 2008 presidential election became a mixture of online and off, broadcast along with cable, as well as pop and civic culture becoming blurred. Within the medium of the internet other forces have emerged that have impacted the campaigns that were not around as recently as 2004, such as YouTube, and Facebook was barely a recognized name (Carr & Steler, 2008). Items, messages, videos, etc., that go onto the internet are not taken off, or erased (Conlin, 2006). Therefore, this puts a magnifying glass over everything that is done throughout a campaign. Campaigners now have the ability to post videos, interviews and etc. for those who missed the television segment. Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic (2004) refer to e-democracy, which is the ability for governments, elected officials, citizens, political organizations, and etc. to use the internet to engage in political debates about current issues that they either agree or disagree with. There is an increasing amount of political commercials that encourage political involvement via the internet (Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic, 2004). Through this mechanism voters can find their own research, which may make them feel more or less confident in their decisions.
This also means that whenever a candidate makes a mistake or has a slip of tongue, it will not go unnoticed. Someone is bound to pick up on it, thus opening it up to scrutiny by viewers. The sermons held by Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Carr & Steler, 2008) is a great example of this. Further, voters are now more skeptical because they can fact-check at any time (Nagourney, 2008).
The has internet created new ways for campaigners to not only reach voters, but raise money, track public opinion, organize supporters and etc. (Nagourney, 2008). The Obama campaign in particular sought to take advantage of the internet based on its demographic is was attempting to reach, the night before the election text messages were sent out reminding supporters to vote (Nagourney, 2008). Bugeja (2005) cites that 25% of lower income families were online as of 2001, which was part of the demographic the Democratic Party usually campaigns towards. The Obama campaign made good use of the internet and mastered its demographic very well. Nagourney (2008) and Carr and Steler (2008) examine how the Obama campaign used the internet to raise a large portion of its money, which has not previously been executed with such finesse.
The tactics implemented by the Obama campaign provide an example of an integrated campaign that comb various sorts of media to accomplish a single goal. There is little doubt that future campaigns will implement similar strategies (Nagourney, 2008). The information that can be shared and obtained by means of the internet, and its ability to combine various forms of media, has changed political campaigns and will continue to foster this change in years to come.
References
Bugjea (2005). Displacement in the global village. 13-39.
Carr, D., & Steler, B. (2008 Nov, 3). Campaigns in a web 2.0 world. New York Times. Retrieved
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/business/media/03media.html?ei=5070&em c=eta1
Conlin, M. (2006). You are what you post. Business Week, 3977, 52-53.
Nargourney, A. (2008 Nov, 4). The 08 campaign: A sea of change for politics as we know it. New York Times. Retrieved http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/us/politics/04memo.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
6 comments:
Times have been changing and in this most recent Presidential campaign politicians did use a lot of e-democracy to help promote themselves and important issues (Thurlow, Lengel and Tomic, 2004). Years ago no one would have even thought of this type of campaigning and as newer technologies are made, this election as well as other important issues our government has, will use technology. This transformation of how we view and read about current events will help others around the world keep up to date on what is happening in our side of the world (Kahn & Kellner, 2004). Communication will come rapidly and others will not have to sit around and wait to hear what is happening, which will help in times of crisis.
References
Kahn, R., & Kellner. D. (2004). New media and internet activism: From the 'battle of Seattle' to blogging. New Media and Society, 6, 87-95.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Barack Obama certainly used the internet to his advantage, but maybe not in the waymost would think. I have an x-box 360 and I pay for online services each month to play my games online. Obama had such a headstrong approach that even as I am playing online I see his face in the outfield of my baseball field, or on the scoreboard of my NFL game or even on the walls of the made up city Jacinto while I play Gears of War. This is unprecedented among presidential candidates who usually fail when trying to relate and “get to” the younger population in this country. Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic (2004) shed light on this topic when they explain the internet and its unique place in the history of communication. They said, “the potential to communicate with vast numbers in a way that before was possible only for the very wealthy and very powerful.” While Obama does fall into the “very powerful” category, he is still using the internet like never before.
This year’s election was a historic one, but for me it was not because an African American was voted into the White House. It was because for the first time I was actually emailed by different candidates’ parties! I usually get inundated with phone calls or get bombarded by television ads, but this election was different. Politicians understand the importance of CMC and realize that our society is growing more virtual every day. According to Thurlow, Lengel, and Tomic (2004), governments, elected officials, political organizations, media, and citizens use the internet to engage in debates about the political process creating an e-democracy. This e-democracy is growing stronger as society continues to post its opinions online and reside in the virtual world more than in the “real” world. Although online communication can help increase awareness of political events and issues, there are still many that are excluded from this helpful technology (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2007).
The 2008 Presidential election was really the first election that I followed since it was the first time I was eligible to vote. I was surprised on how many articles and blogs were out there supporting or criticizing a candidate. I had gone to a website to find out what poll I was suppose to vote at and within in minutes I had emails from both presidents providing information about them and requesting my vote in the election.
Political bloggers have demonstrated the ability to influence decision making (Kahn & Kellner) which makes it more critical for candidates to create their own sites and have others advocating for them to ensure the public perception is not swayed by a political blogger.
Your article points out a very good point about how these candidates are able to target specific groups in order to tweak their message. Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic (2004) state, "Though CMC you can reach a wide audience across the world, speaking for an underrepresented group, or challenging authority"(p.199). This was seen in the past presidential race, more specifically, by Barack Obama. He was able to reach a wide audience, that of the American voting public. An underrepresented group, which is that of the middle class which is usually taken advantage of by big government. He also was able to challenge authority; by question the way the government is run when it comes to economic and foreign policy.
Also, one thing that your blog could of looked at is the way the government uses technology to spy or monitor individuals. As seen in the article by Koppelman (2006) where the police use public sites, like MySpace to look for individuals that are breaking the law. With new technology, authorities are able to monitor the activities of whom ever they want.
Did your research come across anything about how the government uses new technology to spy on people they believe to be terrorist?
Koppelman, A. (2006, June 8). MySpace or OurSpace? Retrieved from Salon.com.
Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Social interaction and the internet. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Jacob, for my part of the blog I did not come accross anything that talked specifically about how the government uses the internet to spy on suspected terrorists. Although, I did watch the CNBC Big Brother, Big Business segments. I had no idea the government was capable of tracking so much information, information that I thought only my best friend would know. I suspected it, but did not know it was actually possible. What I find interesting is Valkenburg, Schouten and Peter (2005) dicuss how adolescents over expose details about their life via the internet, and put with Conlin (2006) discussion on how information posted on the internet is never erased, this is a threatning thing for adolescents - yet our government is taking secrets of our life and keeping track of them on the internet. As technology is ever evolving it is scary to think that this information could end up in the wrong hands and lead to fatal consequences and destruction (CNBC Big Brother, Big Business).
References
CNBC. Big Brother, Big Business. Retrieved December 8, 2008: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6061213358499552766
Conlin, M. (2006). You are What You Post. Business Week, 3977, 52-53.
Valkenburg, M., P., Schouten, P., A., & J., Peter (2005). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet. New Media and Society, 7(3). 383-402.
Post a Comment