There is no doubt that the internet has changed who we are as a society. We can now connect with anyone at the touch of a button and video chat with people on the other side of the world in a matter of seconds. The internet has created a more informed citizenry and there are even studies that suggest civic engagement and internet usage might be linked. By the way, did I mention that the internet has changed political campaigns in a fundamental way. Many argue that Barack Obama was the first candidate who was effectively able to harness the true power of the internet in his presidential campaign in 2008, and it paid off. With the 2012 campaign cycle in full swing, it is important to briefly discuss how the internet has changed campaigning.
The main thing I want to discuss here is the ability of candidates to target specific groups. Have you ever tried to create a Facebook ad? They ask you a million questions about who you are trying to target and just how many people you are looking to reach. In fact, Facebook even estimates the number of people that will see your ad. The age of the internet has changed campaign advertising. You can't even go on a website anymore without seeing an ad for one presidential candidate or another. My personal favorite is when both candidates have ads right next to each other on the same website, but thats beside the point.
I think it is remarkable, and brilliant, how the Obama campaign has been able to target specific groups of voters. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama supporter. But, you can't help but be amazed by the grassroots and social media campaign that he is able to run. Ever notice the websites where you are most likely to see Obama ads? Well, if you haven't let me tell you, it is websites that are frequented by young people. The Daily Show, YouTube, Facebook, these are all typical places to find an Obama campaign ad. In fact, sometimes I get annoyed by all of the Obama 2012 ads that continually pop up. However, when you step back and look at it, it really is amazing. President Obama knows that a key voting bloc for his reelection bid is the young voters and he is not hesitating to go after their votes.
This ability to target advertisements has really changed the campaigning landscape. Young voters are now more likely to see ads that are tailored to discuss the issues important to them. The same thing goes for middle-aged and older voters as well. The internet bombards us with information about politics that we are, frankly, not able to ignore. I would have to argue that the expansion of political advertising on the internet is stimulating the younger generation and even fostering their involvement in politics. Look at the voting date from the 2008 election. Young voters came out in large numbers in support of Barack Obama. One can't help but think it has something to do with his ability to target them in his advertising.
The internet has changed political campaigning in a fundamental way and I would argue that this change is a good thing.
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election. Show all posts
Monday, April 9, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
It's time to talk "Plan B"
Rick Santorum's recent surge in the polls leading up to Super Tuesday has parts of the Republican establishment excited for the possibility of having a hardline, hardcore conservative candidate for the November election against Obama.
Others aren't so sure.
GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.
Continued after the jump.
Others aren't so sure.
GOP strategists unaffiliated with campaigns keep running the numbers, and an Obama vs. Santorum matchup in December shows Obama winning by a landslide, and that's with a rather anemic economic recovery. If the recovery continues to gain steam, it might not even be a fair fight for Santorum.
Continued after the jump.
Monday, February 6, 2012
The Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Definitely Out to Conquer America Mainstream Media
In the course of reading our blog, I've noticed somewhat of a trend. It seems as though everyone wants to rail against the "mainstream, elite, liberal, media." I'm going to take this opportunity to climb up on my soapbox and give my opinion regarding a recent discussion we had in class that centered around this topic. Said discussion was slightly heated and took up an entire class. Maybe I'm crazy for starting it up again, but here it goes.
I think we need to take a minute and stop to consider why the mainstream media do what they do. Obviously, 4-5 hours of election coverage must be interesting to someone. In fact, it must be interesting to a whole lot of someones; otherwise they wouldn't do it. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest of the "liberal media" are all businesses. They don't broadcast election results for 5 hours because they want to, they do it because it makes them money. This means that a pretty substantial segment of the American population must be interested in it. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us, or the government, to try to tell the media sources what to do and what not to do when it comes to election coverage. If Wolf Blitzer wants to stand in the CNN Election Center for 3 days, then let him do it. For us to try to mandate public affairs time, or to try to tell the media what to cover, is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Free press means a free press. It doesn't mean free except for an hour of public affairs time, or free except for these stories that you have to cover, it means free and nothing more. It means that if the the media want to cover the most inconsequential stories, then let them do it. I cite the quote from the front of our syllabus regarding Thomas Jefferson's feelings about the press: "...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter…" Having any government control of the media is the same as having a "government without newspapers." If a government is allowed to control any of the press, then we start down the slippery slope toward government run media; a slope that none of us want to go down. The mainstream media aren't evil; they're just doing their job. If you want news other than what they show, then go find it. Trust me, you can get anything you want on the internet.
This, of course, leads to the issue of whether or not we are a public or a marketplace (an issue also discussed heavily in class). Well, I contend we are both. When it comes to what media stories we want to see, the media treat us as a marketplace, which is a good thing. The media should be covering stories that a good portion of the American population want to see. Meanwhile, while they are giving us the stories we want to see, the media are working in the background to fulfill the public / fourth branch of government role. The media do indeed hold our leaders in check (I cite Watergate and Bill Clinton's woes). The beauty of this is that when the media do need to cover these stories that serve the interests of the public, the public usually listens. In these instances, the marketplace aspect of the media combines with the public aspect and the story that we as Americans need to see becomes the story we want to see. It then becomes profitable for the media to be the fourth branch of government.
The free press is the bedrock of our democracy. To abridge that right, in any way, shape, or form would be fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution. It is easy for us, being in an academic atmosphere, to sit back and tell Americans that they need to follow more important news stories. However, this is wrong and we shouldn't do it! Our country is called the land of the free for a reason. If everyday Americans don't want to care about important international news stories, it is their choice. It is not the job of the government to try to force public affairs broadcasting or to control the media. The free media is a force for good. It is an engine for capitalism like no other. On top of generating profit and creating jobs for millions of Americans, the media provides products that citizens want to consume, while being constantly vigilant for corruption in government,
The mainstream media is not the enemy that we seem to like to make it out to be (especially Newt Gingrich). Our open media is what makes our nation special; it is what separates us from authoritarian regimes in other countries. For those that say the government needs to stick their hand in the media, I would direct you to the industries that government thought they needed to be involved with in the past. I would cite the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Social Security to name a few. One thing these programs have in common: they're all going broke. If the government can't even deliver my mail without somehow going into bankruptcy, I sure as heck don't want them tampering with the free press.
I think we need to take a minute and stop to consider why the mainstream media do what they do. Obviously, 4-5 hours of election coverage must be interesting to someone. In fact, it must be interesting to a whole lot of someones; otherwise they wouldn't do it. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and the rest of the "liberal media" are all businesses. They don't broadcast election results for 5 hours because they want to, they do it because it makes them money. This means that a pretty substantial segment of the American population must be interested in it. I think it is fundamentally wrong for us, or the government, to try to tell the media sources what to do and what not to do when it comes to election coverage. If Wolf Blitzer wants to stand in the CNN Election Center for 3 days, then let him do it. For us to try to mandate public affairs time, or to try to tell the media what to cover, is a blatant violation of the first amendment. Free press means a free press. It doesn't mean free except for an hour of public affairs time, or free except for these stories that you have to cover, it means free and nothing more. It means that if the the media want to cover the most inconsequential stories, then let them do it. I cite the quote from the front of our syllabus regarding Thomas Jefferson's feelings about the press: "...and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter…" Having any government control of the media is the same as having a "government without newspapers." If a government is allowed to control any of the press, then we start down the slippery slope toward government run media; a slope that none of us want to go down. The mainstream media aren't evil; they're just doing their job. If you want news other than what they show, then go find it. Trust me, you can get anything you want on the internet.
This, of course, leads to the issue of whether or not we are a public or a marketplace (an issue also discussed heavily in class). Well, I contend we are both. When it comes to what media stories we want to see, the media treat us as a marketplace, which is a good thing. The media should be covering stories that a good portion of the American population want to see. Meanwhile, while they are giving us the stories we want to see, the media are working in the background to fulfill the public / fourth branch of government role. The media do indeed hold our leaders in check (I cite Watergate and Bill Clinton's woes). The beauty of this is that when the media do need to cover these stories that serve the interests of the public, the public usually listens. In these instances, the marketplace aspect of the media combines with the public aspect and the story that we as Americans need to see becomes the story we want to see. It then becomes profitable for the media to be the fourth branch of government.
The free press is the bedrock of our democracy. To abridge that right, in any way, shape, or form would be fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution. It is easy for us, being in an academic atmosphere, to sit back and tell Americans that they need to follow more important news stories. However, this is wrong and we shouldn't do it! Our country is called the land of the free for a reason. If everyday Americans don't want to care about important international news stories, it is their choice. It is not the job of the government to try to force public affairs broadcasting or to control the media. The free media is a force for good. It is an engine for capitalism like no other. On top of generating profit and creating jobs for millions of Americans, the media provides products that citizens want to consume, while being constantly vigilant for corruption in government,
The mainstream media is not the enemy that we seem to like to make it out to be (especially Newt Gingrich). Our open media is what makes our nation special; it is what separates us from authoritarian regimes in other countries. For those that say the government needs to stick their hand in the media, I would direct you to the industries that government thought they needed to be involved with in the past. I would cite the Postal Service, Amtrak, and Social Security to name a few. One thing these programs have in common: they're all going broke. If the government can't even deliver my mail without somehow going into bankruptcy, I sure as heck don't want them tampering with the free press.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Mr. Romney's Foot-in-Mouth Disease
After "thumping" Newt in Florida earlier this week, Mitt sat down with CNN the morning afterwards for the customary celebratory interview. Going into this, I'm sure Mr. Romney thought it'd be a cake walk. He had just won one of the biggest toss-up states for the general election, and he was going to make sure he made the most out of the free airtime he was about to get.
What Mitt got instead is a serious headache, with a very bad prognosis of recovering by November. Video and commentary continues after the jump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)