Networks and the election

[AlexReid]

Many of you focused your podcasts on the role of social media on the 2008 election. I don't know if you listened to one another's podcasts but I'm interested to have a discussion about this issue. This fits in quite well with our discussion of Jenkins as it is an example of how the participatory online fan cultures Jenkins study have laid a groundwork for more serious issues. That is, the technologies and practices that emerge in fan culture move over toward political engagement.

[Vinny Thide]

This election was actually my second presidential election to vote in. In 2000 when I voted, and it wasn't for Bush, I remember listening to the radio, catching a few blips here and there on the TV, speaking with my parents and reading articles to decide who my best choice was for the election. This election was completely different. As a few of the podcasts mentioned, the voter turnout amongst younger voters for this election was higher than it has ever been. With MTV and Google and Youtube as well as many others drawing in young voters to get involved, participatory cultures were hard at work. Similar to those getting involved with Survivor spoilers through online communication, voters, including me, found themselves online to find out the specifics of each canditate in regard to the economy, health care, the war, and even about the personal lives of the candidates. I myself watched Youtube videos, listened to Second Life discussions, watched parts of the debates online and researched each candidates positions on many of the issues effecting our society today by going online. The technology of today allowed me to become much more involved with this election as compared to the 2000 election.

[Vinny Thide]

Error: I voted in 2004, NOT 2000!!!!!!

[Taylor]

I can really relate to Vinny in terms of this presidential election. This was actually my first time being able to vote for president, but I have voted for previous local politics in years before. I remember the last presidential election, in which I could not vote, yet wanted to know every detail about both candidates. I remember listening to my parents discussions pertaining to the presidential issues, the newspapers, and tv, all of which I fed off of. This election was much different in regards to the amount of technology involved. For this election I also went to the Internet as my first method of becoming more knowledgeable of the 2 Presidential candidates. The Internet makes it so easy to find information about Presidential issues and campaigns and such, and I truly believe it is because of the Internet influence that many more young people voted this time around than ever before.

[Steven Richmond]

In reference to Taylor’s posting, my first time voting in a presidential election was in 2004. Through both elections in 2004 and 2008, I got most of my knowledge on the candidates through discussions with family members and by watching TV. I do however agree that there was more technology involved in this election despite my limited use of it. The internet was a frequently used method of gaining knowledge in this election. It was even referenced on live news programs. It does seem like the youth vote is becoming stronger. The new technology such as the internet like Taylor said could be the reason for this.

[Bryce Urbany]

The internet participation for this year's election was historic. It's not like there wasn't the internet four years ago when Bush and Kerry were in the running. I remember people talking about the election online and through podcasts almost as much as this election. But the real leap in online networking for this election wouldn't have been as great as it was without the marketing and campaigning that Obama did online. If you go to his website, the designer definitely read Krug's Don't Make Me Think Book because the site is one of the most easily navigable sites on the net. The interface was easy and it is where I went to register to vote and find out about his policies. This translates right into his new site of the transition of power where all of his goals are clearly outlined. What Obama also did was create the very popular iPhone application free to users which included features such as organizing your contacts into the key battleground states, reminded you to call them to vote and allowed you to update their voting status. The application also updated users on local political events, current Obama media and Obama's complete plan as president with his policies as a handy tool for when on the phone with people. You can't argue that these tools and tactics used didn't help Obama enter the white house.
I also can not fail to mention the support that Republican candidate Ron Paul had during the primary stages of the election. His grassroots style of campaigning through his money bombs where people set up dates online where you could donate raising record amounts of money in a 24 hour period. Sites that helped get his message out there like Digg flooded news websites with his information and anytime there was a debate with an online poll as to who won, networks usually had to pull the poll down because they thought it was broken. It wasn't broken, people just flocked to the site and voted for Paul skewing all of the other candidates. At first the main stream media wouldn't give Paul the time of day editing him out of the debate re-runs, not scheduling any interviews, but this had to come to a stop with the constant pestering from the online communities e-mail bombing the news networks to get Dr. Paul onto their stations. Eventually we all know what happened to him though but without the support of online communities we would of never heard of this lonely governor.

[Will]

It's so weird because I just replied to the Jenkins discussion before reading this. As I said in the other reply, I feel like many of the principles Jenkins discusses can be applied to the election. Whether it's o.k. to sit in your room and obsess over American Idol is up to you to decide, but most of us would feel it's stupid. But those same people might feel sitting in your room and obsessing over the election is perfectly acceptable. In lies a problem, they are the same principle. Just because something appears to be important doesn't mean we shouldn't hold it to the same standards we hold everything else. Politics are important, they effect our day-to-day lives respectably often. But, get off the couch and stop wondering what Palin said. Stop flicking between FOX and NBC to try to balance the stories and get a reasonable fact pattern. It is the same thing as watching soap operas because the media portrays it as a life or death situation. The media portrays it as you NEED to know what happened, and who messed up in a press conference. We're human, we all make mistakes.

[AlexReid]

This is a good point Will. It reminds me of some of the critiques that come across in a humorous way on the Daily Show. The 24-hour news cycle and competition between various news channels creates a kind of fever pitch about pretty minor business. Everyday you could go on CNN and hear them talking about how the William Ayers business wasn't that important... yet they had to talk about it every day. They always say that they don't make the news but simply report it. But that isn't exactly choose. If you only had one hour to present the news obviously we would have a different sense of news than we do when it is 'round the clock.

That said, the news is broken into 3-5 minute digestible chunks and recycled through the news cycle. There is little attempt to create a sustained analysis, like a two-hour program on our economic situation. After all there might be somebody getting on or off a plane and we need coverage of them waving, right?

In theory, the web can be a place for sustained, thoughtful analysis. I have no problem with the light or humorous response to politics or current events. We all enjoy that I think. I am not sure that the intensive partisan bickering that quickly devolves into personal attacks is of any value. This is what you'd see in the comment thread on many political articles. It is troubling that we do not have the ethical-intellectual foundation to engage in a thoughtful manner with those that we disagree, that we are seemingly unable to hear what they have to say, and that we are certainly not open to changing our own minds.

But then again it's not surprising either.

[Will]

When you said, "[t]here is little attempt to create a sustained analysis, like a two-hour program on our economic situation " , the first thing I thought of were Fire-Side Chats with past Presidents. I think if we had something like this again, we may be able to stream out of some of the bi-partisan "bickering", as you say and I agree with, and actually inform the people of exactly what the President is thinking and feeling. With Obama having so much charisma and a likability factor, I don't see why he couldn't capitalize on something like that. He could broadcast on several television stations and get a live stream on the web. He could let us know about what's going on, and how the Administration is dealing with it.

I feel that everything you said in the last paragraph is true, and sometimes all the media is a bit much. But something I forgot to realize and I think is important is the fact that the media plays a huge role in Politics. It is a check on our government. The founders of our country never intended for that, after all there are 3 branches of Government not 4, but perhaps in our fast paced environment, where deception is extremely easy, the media is necessary. After all if we didn't have media, I don't know if we would know about Nixon's Watergate Scandal. I am not too familiar with the topic, and I don't know much about what the Scandal was, but I'm pretty sure our media played a role.

But, I think we'd both agree, that the media would cover a politician farting on camera if it could. Which is completely excessive, unneccesary, and has no effect on how said Politician can govern.

[Vinny Thide]

I agree with you Will that media is still necessary even in the fast paced, internet savvy society we live in. I say this thinking of my grandmother. She is 81 years old and has no contact with computers at all. She relies on media, whether it be through television, news articles, magazines, radio or whatever, to become informed on the issues. We try to convince her to take advantage of the internet but she seems very intimidated by it. She certainly is not ignorant as she reads and pay's attention to all she can in regard to important issues such as politics. This is why media is still important for those who do not have interest in using the internet or for those who might not have the means for internet access.

[Taylor]

I agree that media besides the internet is definitely still important. Some, like Vinny's grandmother, are just not comfortable using the Internet which is okay! I know some farmers and others who live out in the country who don't have the internet because they can't get a stable connection, therefore people like that must depend on the media for news especially news that pertained to the presidential election at this time. When individuals get on the internet and that is their way of finding news I feel like they only read what they want to and may not get both sides of the story. When the news channel is on there is no skipping over what's her face because you don't care what she has to say, you sit there and listen because it's easy to do that. The media, whether it be over the Internet or the tv, will always take sides as they did in this election and have done forever, it is just up to the viewer to make their own decision concerning which candidate they agree with and the one they don't. I feel like news channels and the internet alike should be used together for gathering information, especially when there is an election. An individual should find as many sources as they can on the subject so they can make an educated decision.

[Tim]

Bipartisan bickering, like the show cross-fire, really pisses me off. (Is cross-fire even on anymore? watch Jon Stewart on crossfire on youtube from 2004) Can't we all just get along?

But I think you make a good point about the news broken up into 3-5 minutes chunks, which is a nice way of saying Americans have VERY short attentions spans. But I also think the news is borken up like that keep the mode upbeat. For example, discussing our current economic situation seriously brings the mood down. What do they follow that up with? Celebrities having babies, kittens getting saved from fires, Sarah Palin's 150K clothing, etc. Most people simply can't handle too much truth at once.

But I think the media really helped Obama. If anyone say the Katie Couric interview with Palin say a bumbling VP candidate unable to name a single newspaper. I'm not judging, I certainly couldn't go on nation TV and answer questions, but the media was relentless anyway. They showed Palin as a stupid rookie-even though she was. And then they made McCain look like a hot headed dinosaur next to the vibrant and witty Obama. For once the media was on my side!!!

[Will]

"For example, discussing our current economic situation seriously brings the mood down. What do they follow that up with? Celebrities having babies, kittens getting saved from fires, Sarah Palin's 150K clothing, etc. Most people simply can't handle too much truth at once.
"

I feel like BBC never does any of this though. If you watch BBC or listen to NPR it is nothing but news and facts. Of course BBC is a British news network, but it still has world news and never talks about Prince Williams outfit. Things may be depressing, but that is reality. And a lot of times I would rather watch a realistic glimpse of the world than a superficial false view of it. There are times when the depressing, hard truths are not something I want to hear. On the other hand, I never want to hear the irrelevant facts, like how many times Sarah Palin winked on camera.

That is the difference, I would rather watch depressing, real news some of the time than irrelevant, superficial news ever!