(Photo Credit: ScribeMedia.org)
This chapter was intriguing. As a child of the "digital age" nearly every aspect of my life has a connection to technology and the internet. Homework assignments call for research that can be done online, I can connect with out-of-state friends over Facebook or Skype, get information about news, entertainment, celebrity scandals and everything in between. In fact, I am one of those annoying people who when asked a question to which I don't know the answer I respond "Google it!" (or as my dad says, "punch it up on the internet thing). It was really interesting to read that the internet, social media, blogs, e-mail and the like are not necessarily as old as I may have thought they were. Throughout the chapter, Trent and Friedenberg point out that Bill Clinton was one of the first to use e-mail, online discussion groups and distribute information to some extent, John McCain was the first to solicit donations through e-mail (and was EXTREMELY successful at that venture), and Obama was the first to use the internet to campaign to the extent that we see today (using social media, websites, blogs, e-mail, text messages, YouTube, IPhone Applications and the like).
Trent and Friedenberg point out the overwhelming number of citizens who use the internet for political purposes (blogging,seeking information, engaging in discussion, etc.) and the way in which candidate's use of internet mediums brings a sense of connection to the public. This makes me wonder, what are the advantages to using this new media as opposed to the traditional way of campaigning? And along those same lines, what are the disadvantages?
In my opinion, one of the MOST important advantages to new media in political campaigns is way that the internet and technology make fundraising easier and smoother than it used to be. In class we learned that before the internet was used, donations were solicited by mail which was (in most cases) a long and drawn out process. Mail can get lost, hidden under a pile of bills, or simply forgotten. Even if a citizen decided they wanted to contribute to the campaign, the amount of time it took to receive the donations was most likely an issue for political campaigns. However, with the internet, donating to a campaign is easy and quick. When a citizen chooses to explore a candidate's website, the first thing that they come across is an option to donate. All one has to do is choose an amount (or enter one in if it does not appear) and enter their credit card information. The money goes to that campaign. There are also options to donate through text messages as you can see here:
(Photo Credit: Tatango.com)
How crazy is that? By simply typing the words "Donate" and "Yes" a person is able to contribute to the candidate that they wish to support. You don't even have to enter a credit card number! How much easier can it get!
The internet and new media make it much easier for both the candidate as well as the public to both fund raise and contribute respectively.
Another advantage to new media is the candidate's ability to distribute information to the public in a way that's cheaper, faster, and more people are able to see/read/access the information than by way of traditional mediums. For instance, as I was able to see in class, on both Romney and Obama's official websites, there is an area dedicated to each candidate's position on issues. It is incredibly easy for citizens to access and it is a much more efficient way for candidate's to inform the public on where they stand versus where their opponent stands. Although through televised or broadcasts of speeches and articles in magazine and newspapers are able to also convey a candidate's stance, the ease of using a website as a means to share information is valuable to both the candidate and the public. Here is a link to both Obama and Romney's "Issues" portion of their websites:
For candidates, using their websites as a platform to discuss their stances is both easier and cheaper than traditional political mediums.
A third advantage to new media in political campaigns is the ability to receive quick and concise feedback from the public and connect to them on a more personal level. Trent and Friedenberg point out the social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Blogs are a way that citizens are able to engage in the political process. They are able to post opinions, issues and concerns on the internet for any and everyone to see. By paying attention to these internet tools, candidates are better able to get feedback on what is and is not working in their campaigns and re-organize accordingly.
Social media, text messages and e-mails create a sense of personal connection to candidates that we just don't get from simply seeing them on television. Seeing a candidate's Twitter and Facebook page, following their posts, and reading their personal messages gives us a sense of being in the "in crowd" as Trent and Friedenberg point out. For a candidate this is an advantage because when citizens feel that they are somehow connected to a candidate, they become more likely to support that candidate come election day. For instance, when I open my e-mail and see that I have an e-mail from "Obama" and it actually starts out saying "Lauren..." it makes me feel connected his campaign on a more personal level. Although I know that Obama did not personally sit down and write the e-mail, it still makes my support stronger in a sense.
In life, there is a positive and a negative to everything, and the same goes for new media and political communication. First, with the internet and new media we get everything faster, information, news, pictures, videos, everything and for the most part, any and everyone with internet access can get their hands on this information. While this can be a good thing and help citizens to stay informed, it can be bad for candidates occasionally. Trent and Friedenberg discuss YouTube, as did Powell and Cowart in the article "Cyberspace: The Internet and Political Communication." In both the article and in "Political Campaign Communication" it becomes clear that sometimes, YouTube can be a candidate's worst enemy (whoever said any press is good press was mistaken). Before YouTube, to catch a candidate doing something that had a negative effect on their campaign would have required the presence of the media. Although these events did happen, take for example the infamous video below:
However, now candidate's not only have to be concerned with the media catching them in moments of bad judgment, but anyone with a camera phone can hurt a candidate's campaign, which is what recently happened to Romney:
While using new media can be advantageous for a candidate, that same new media can also cause them to lose support as well. With the ability to spread information, videos, pictures etc. like wildfire, sometimes candidates are at the mercy of citizens with camera phones. While we, the public, may find that these videos are a good thing, meaning that we are able to see a candidate's "true colors" at times, candidates most likely do not feel the same way.
Another disadvantage is the amount of untrue information and negative information that is put onto the internet regarding a candidate, their values, positions and personality. In "Cyberspace: The Internet and Political Communication" Powell and Cowart explain the any one can start a website or a blog and for the most part, there is no one moderating the information that they type. Trent and Friedenberg state that by 2008 there were over 150 million blogs (370). So who controls what information is put on these blogs? Essentially no one and sometimes all it takes is the spreading of a lie that can cause strife for a candidate. For example, the issue of Obama's being born in America was taken so seriously that copies of Obama's birth certificate are plastered all over the internet.Another example of this would be related to the Carlin and Winfrey article "Have You Come A Long Way Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage." The article discussed the negative way Sarah Palin were portrayed by the media. This is also true of the internet as well. Several blogs, websites and Facebook pages were created that painted these strong and capable women in a negative light, questioning Sarah Palin's parenting skills and Hillary Clinton's "ball-breaking" tendencies. These internet pages and social media posts had negative effects on each woman's campaign, some people would read these posts and question Palin and Clinton's ability to govern based on this irrelevant information. Again, the use of the internet to distribute information in political campaigns can have many positive effects, however, the instance spreading misinformation and negative information can cause issues for candidates.
A third disadvantage for candidate using new media is that while a huge portion of the population uses the internet and technology to access information regarding elections, there are still those that prefer the more traditional way, television, newspapers, radio and the like. For instance, my father is one of the smartest people I know, he dearly loves to engage in political discourse, debate with me and have conversations about candidates. However, he does not have an e-mail address, Twitter account, and only has a Facebook because my younger sister created one for him, he never signs on or reads anything on the page. He has no interest in technology or the internet. He reads the Sunday paper, listens to talk radio and watches television for his political information. He is currently an undecided voter. How is Obama or Romney going to have the best chance to reach him and convince him? Politicians face a challenge with creating a balance between new media while also trying to pay attention to those who may not choose to utilize new media (and I don't see anything wrong with that myself). While new media is an exciting way to connect with voters, fund raise, distribute information, organize volunteers, etc. they can be at a disadvantage if they focus their attention on these new mediums and not as much on traditional mediums. Trent and Friedenberg point out that new media gives citizens a chance to engage themselves in politics in ways that weren't necessarily possible before. New media is faster, cheaper and efficient for politicians, but if they don't remember that not all voters/citizens choose to use these mediums, they may be missing important votes.
Chapter 11 in Trent and Friedenberg's "Political Campaign Communication" was very interesting. Not only did I see that the internet, social media, cell phones, text messages and the like were such key elements of elections and campaigns but I also learned how empowered and excited these mediums can make voters/citizens feel. With more and more technology being developed everyday and more apps in the iTunes store by the hour, it is going to be exciting to see where technology will take political campaigns next and what effects they will have on candidates as well as citizens.
14 Days to Go!
No comments:
Post a Comment