Introduction
For my midterm project, I will be looking at the direct relationship between today's current political landscape and the internet, specifically the current presidential primaries. Personally, I find it fascinating just how much our politics and especially the act of running for political office have changed. For instance, it was only a few years ago that candidates were required to fly from state to state on a whirlwind trip, making sure they got in touch with every small town in America, which was taxing enough. Now not only do candidates have to continue to maintain a good rapport in all these small towns, but they also must maintain a well-run website. It is fascinating how one presidential debate, Kennedy versus Nixon in 1960, seemingly reinvented how political campaigns are run. With the advent of television, you must make sure your candidate is not only heard, but more importantly seen and seen well. This was Nixon's final flaw in the 1960 Presidential debate; he appeared on camera without makeup, giving him a sweaty anxious look. With candidates like Barrack Obama and Ron Paul generating much buzz through the internet, it will be curious to see what future technologies will bring to the table.
As far as what texts I intend to use, I will probably base most of my information on the candidate's websites. I should point out that I do not think this excludes other candidates that have already dropped out of the race. In addition, I will get some information from major news corporation's websites and possibly use some YouTube videos (such as Obama Girl), to help make my point. I am really excited to gain a better understanding of our country's political system and how new media is effecting it. Politics have always been of interest to me, and I hope, through this project, I can convey that interest to you.
The Candidates Websites
Overall the candidates websites are similar in construction. Each website has a homepage that consists of the candidate's image, video endorsements for the candidate, official campaign news, an issues summary page, and a place to pledge your support by making some sort of donation. Likewise each website has a running total of delegate votes as well as pictures of the next states to hold primaries. Interestingly enough they all have links to social networks, like MySpace, YouTube and Facebook. However, there are some subtle differences between each candidate's homepage. For instance Mike Huckabee chose a formal picture,while the other three candidates chose candid shots. Huckabee also has more biographical information on his homepage, while his opponents stuck with more quick link hits. Each candidate adds their own personal touch to his or her website. Obama offers ring tones to his hip college base of supporters; Clinton offers a snicker doodle recipe to her suburban housewife faithful.
YouTube
YouTube seems to be having a profound effect on politics these days. And not only Presidential, but state politics as well. Take for example Virginia Senator George Allen's bid for re-election.
After the now infamous "macaca" comment Allen will not be seeing the Senate anytime soon. Consider the effect of "Obama Girl."
Relatively early on in the Illinois Senator's campaign, an unknown supporter made a very well edited piece of his infatuation with the presidential candidate. Now almost seven million hits later, Obama is starting to pull away in the democratic primaries and Obama Girl will forever live in American political history. But YouTube has its adverse effects as well. Just ask John Edwards.
After the news of his "million" dollar haircut, a YouTube video was promptly produced of Edwards combing his hair in front of the camera to West Side Stories "I Feel Pretty."
Sometimes what looks to be bad press in the beginning can actually help a candidate, such as Hillary Clinton crying just before the New Hampshire primaries. Many thought this was the end for Clinton; however, it actually catapulted her to a commanding lead, which she held on to for several weeks.
TV's Effects on Politics
Television media has been a dominating influence on politics for almost fifty years now. Ever since the epic debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, TV has had a chokehold on politics and it refuses to let go. It is interesting to note that radio listeners believed that Nixon won the debate but that television viewers gave Kennedy the advantage.
The image of Nixon looking tired, shabby and sweaty contrasted negatively compared to Kennedy's sharp, clean cut and professional look; the visual contrast undoubtedly helped win over viewers but did nothing for listeners. One would hope that our society has evolved to a point in time that agenda and message are the critical criteria in judging a candidate. This is unfortunately not true, since in our current election, candidate Clinton has been criticized for not dressing feminine enough; the current campaign just underlines how important image (appearance) has become.
The 1964 campaign gives us another example of the power of television media. The Johnson campaign ran a now infamous campaign ad of a little girl juxtaposed with an image of an atomic bomb.
The extraordinary thing to note is that the ad ran only once, and we are still seeing its effects on today's society. Hillary Clinton released a similar video a few days ago. Political pundits are referring to it as a scare tactic. Will this help or hurt her? Is this evidence of her desperation?
With the advent of New Media it will be interesting to see the pull these ads will have.
Radio's Effects on Politics
In 1925 Calvin Coolidge became the first president in American history to address the nation with his inaugural address over the radio. Since then not much has changed as far as the political pull radio holds. Personally I feel almost as if State Propositions are more heavily advertised on the radio than Presidential politics. With talk shows such as NPR's Talk of the Nation and Rush Limbaugh, there is no denying the popularity of politics on the radio. And with iTune sales through the roof, it seems as if there is no stopping the popularity of political radio shows. But just how influential are these shows on the actual outcome of the election? According to Tim Cuprisin, TV/radio columnist for Wisconsin's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, not that much. Cuprisin said in an article on America.gov that Talk Radio Hosts are "not part of news and anybody who takes their news from talk radio É is making a mistake because the shows are basically constructed around the personality" of their hosts. For proof, you need to look no further than today's current political stand point. Although many radically conservative talk show hosts do not support John McCain, it looks as if, barring any unforeseen circumstance, McCain will indeed get the Republican Nomination. The problem is, Limbaugh and his colleges only appeal to a certain niche crowd that are interested in that sort of sensationalized media.
Coverage
With today's fast paced society, people unfortunately barely have time to keep updated on the news. That is why coverage on major network cites have become so important. Consider this, each network not only constantly updates their websites, but also provide video of their daily news broadcast, sometimes right after they air. Most of the websites are relatively the same, covering the same stories and issues. All the networks seem to treat each candidate the same,however, not equal. In fact, recently there has been an out cry over the unbalanced coverage of the democratic candidates. After Saturday Night Live's skit involving the media fanfare about Senator Obama, the networks have started to be more critical of the Senator.
Hilary's camp has been crying foul practically the entire campaign but until that now infamous skit aired no one seemed to be listening.
The Downside of the Internet
Most people will believe anything they read on the internet. A classic example is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a dangerous media because it is safe, helpful, useful and easy...almost too easy. Anyone who has access to the internet can go on an account and edit anything they would like about any article found on Wikipedia. Therefore, the danger of a site like Wikipedia is the potential for misinformation. And once bad information gets out it spreads like wild fire. Take chain e-mails for example, specifically the one referring to Barrack Obama as a Muslim. The e-mail was started by one of Obama's opponents and strategically shows up just before important primaries. Obama has been forced to address the issue of his religious affiliation and says that he is a member of the United Church of Christ. This e-mail is preying on the fear of terrorism held by most Americans. It is this kind of publicity that shows the inherent danger of the internet.
Conclusion
Unfortunately, it seems as if we have strayed from our country's humble beginnings. Since when did our politics become more about appearance and public persona than about the issues? Why is it that we our constantly voting for the candidate with the most money or air time, as opposed to the candidate who is best qualified for the office? Albeit, it is comforting that some candidates, such as Obama have chosen the grass roots approach, the question is will it get him elected? As Magnus Enzensberger says in the opening of his article Constituents of a Theory of the Media, "With the development of the electronic media, the industry that shapes consciousness has become the pacemaker for the social and economic development of societies in the late industrial age."(Pg 261 of The New Media Reader) How is this proverbial pacemaker controlling how we think, and subjecting us to a "higher power's" point of view?
Works Cited
America's Election Headquarters. 5 March2008. Fox News Network, LLC.
http://elections.foxnews.com/.
Bauder, David. "A Harder Look at Obama, post- 'SNL'?" Yahoo News. 4 March 2008.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_en_tv/obama_media_2.
Hillary for President. 5 March 2008. Hillary Clinton for President. 29 February 2008.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/home/>.
CNN Politics.com. 5 March 2008. Turner Broadcasting, Inc. 3 March 2008.
Grassroots Fundraising Hits $4 Million. 7 November 2007. The Internet and Democracy Group. 2 March 2008
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/2007/11/07/grassroots-campaign-fundraising-hits-4-million/.
Nagourney, Adam and Healy, Patrick. "Different Rules When a Rival Is a Woman?" 5 November 2007. The New York Times. 27 February 2008.
McCain. 5 March 2008. John McCain 2008. 3 March 2008.
Mike Huckabee for President. 5 March 2008. Huckabee for President, Inc. 27 February 2008.
MSNBC. 5 March 2008. Microsoft. 3 March 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/.
Obama '08. 5 March 2008. Obama for America. 1 March 2008.
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php.
Talk Radio Has Minimal Influence on U.S. Presidential Election. 13 February 2008. U.S. Department of State. 4 March 2008
http://www.america.gov/st/elections08english/2008/February/200802131811151xeneerg0.4280512.html.
Wardrip-Fruin, Noah and Montfort, Nick, eds. The New Media Reader. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003.