Politics Today

New new media has changed the way campaigns are run today. Candidates now have the ability to target specific segments through a number of different media instead of just using mass communication. They can target a large segment of the population with Facebook, Twitter, they can blog about their campaign experience and upload YouTube videos to keep their voters entertained and informed. Instead of spending a large sum of money on a spot on a major TV news outlet, they can create a speech from the comfort of their home, or on the road even, and upload it to YouTube. They can tape interviews with voters at different locations to answer questions in a less formal environment and give a down to earth appeal.

But, new new media can also be very damaging to a campaign. If some unknown truth about the candidate is revealed, it will spread like wildfire throughout the Internet. This would call for serious damage control both through the use of social media as well as conventional mass media. So, I see new new media as being extremely helpful for the public in terms of election. Not only do we have the potential to feel significantly more connected to our candidates, but there is also an ease with which the majority of society can learn about past scandals if they happen to come up during the election period (or after).

However, we must always be careful not to believe anything too quickly and always check stories against other sources. Although the truth has the ability to spread rapidly across the Internet, so do lies.

Obama and Digital Media for his 2008 Campaign

A Little Help From My Friends

In New New Media Dr. Levinson says that the Internet, and the use of new new media, was essential to the success of the Obama campaign. With the 2012 election quickly approaching, it will be interesting to see how each of the candidates learn from the 2008 campaigns, and use new new media in original ways. Much like Dr. Levinson's experience of using mybarackobama.com to interact with Obama's backers and contribute support to the campaign, the continuing trend is to use the enthusiasm of fans and to enlist supporters as tools to help drive the campaign forward.

Many companies use new media and social media to attract interested people, and use their participation to spread messages by word of mouth. It happens all the time--"viral marketing" seems to be a big buzz word. Campaign managers or marketing firms put some kind of information, video, or image "out there," hoping it will get discovered. The fans do the rest of the work by actively sharing with friends, providing feedback, and building excitement. On Facebook, 19.5 million people "like" Obama, and regularly post thousands of comments on wall posts, effectively sharing the information with entire network of friends. On the other side of the spectrum, Sarah Palin has only mustered up around 3 million likes. While that number of likes is significantly less than Obama's, Palin's fans still offer their support and feedback, which creates a unified group of enthusiastic caribou hunters. Upon writing this post, a discussion was taking place among fans hoping for Sarah Palin's successful Presidential candidacy, and the question of whether or not Obama has a valid American birth certificate. Fan Jason Baldwin exclaimed, "PLEASE RUN! WE NEED YOU!"

I am curious to see how future candidates will use new media in different ways. Will they favor YouTube or Twitter over Facebook, or will something completely new lead the way? I think that Facebook likes are advantageous because when someone likes something, it is posted to the news feed for 400-600 other people to see. This gets people thinking about the information. As demonstrated by videos like Rebecca Black's "Friday," (which is now up to 120 million views) nothing spreads as quickly as a YouTube video. I don't think Obama's use of YouTube has been successful. His videos rarely feature more than a talking head or statistics. For example, I have embedded the most recent video from Obama's channel (posted April 25th).

If I am on YouTube, this is NOT the type of video I willingly watch. That type of video is better suited for an old medium like television. The YouTube comments do allow for discussion to take place in a pubic forum and people can post video responses, which is typical of the new media, however, the videos themselves are not tailored to the new medium of YouTube. If a new candidate can create a campaign using the potential of new media to the fullest, it will be interesting to see if it is successful.

Did you see that?

Anybody notice how Christina Aguilera messed up the National Anthem at the Superbowl? If you missed it or just didn't notice it, feel free to go check out the video. In instances like this, I almost feel bad that YouTube has provided a way for people anywhere in the world to see mistakes like this at anytime they like from almost any location. But then again, it's the beauty of new media.

YouTube allows us to instantly replay clips from an incredible database of films, TV shows, you name it. The first video I ever saw was of a Family Guy episode where the Kool-Aid man busts into court room yelling, "Oh Yeahhhh." This clip was what brought me to the show, and I have enjoyed it ever since, but without YouTube, who knows how long it would have taken me (if ever) to start watching it.

YouTube is also a great academic tool. My teachers constantly use it in class whether it is for informational purposes, a quick laugh, examples to supper their lectures, or because other websites' clips don't work. Some students find it easier to learn via example instead of reading words off of paper, and YouTube provides this for students. Why read a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. when you can watch it online and see his passion? Personally, I'd rather watch it. YouTube can be used to teach a vast array of things, including how to tie a tie.

YouTube for social change. Social media as a whole is what can get our country moving forward and really working to create change, but YouTube can be especially powerful. Non-profits could use this free medium to create short clips exemplifying what needs to be done and how people can help, and then further embedding these clips in their blogs, Facebook pages, etc. Showing viewers the problem the non-profit is working to alleviate can greatly increase awareness. Yes, they use commercials as a means of marketing now, but people tune out of commercials and prefer to have control over what ads they see. But, if people are already reading a non-profits blog, chances are they are going to want to see what the video entails. Furthermore, if a school held a serious protest and it was uploaded to YouTube, I would assume that the video would spread like wildfire and hopefully, if the cause was just and meaningful enough, would lead to more action. I strongly believe we could change our futures by using YouTube as a means of communicating. It's not just words on a screen or piece of paper. It's a movement, recorded, and one that can be played over and over again from now until, well, it could be forever I suppose. Obama used new new media to communicate with the younger voters, why wouldn't we use it to communicate with him?