Posts Tagged: politics


Posts Tagged ‘politics’

Nov 03 2010

Response: Politics, Week 10

Published by

1. The Boyd articles discusses how teens create and update SNS profiles based on their perceived audience? How do we portray ourselves different on the Web than we would in other mediated spaces and why do we do so?

2. What implications will we see from the way that teens and young adults use the Web today? How will it change the way society views certain behaviors, or will it change it at all?

I can’t provide an answer here that has any kind of scientific or research-based evidence. However, I can say that I think people are narcissistic by nature. They want to show themselves off and they want to show themselves off in a positive light. People have a tendency to post things that communicate the “OH MY LIFE IS SO GREAT!” message. Or if they are going through a hard time they may take the “WOE IS ME, FEEL SORRY FOR ME!” approach.

We don’t know the implications of these public portrayals yet. It will be interesting to see the news agencies pull up 30 year old Facebook pictures of Presidential candidates getting drunk or high at a party in college. Or using status updates/comments from decades before to enhance political mudslinging. It seems like our society will lower its moral standards as life becomes more and more public. We’ll see that even the woman who sits next to us in church every Sunday has a tagged Facebook photo of her making out with the preacher at a bar.

Everyone has an intrinsic desire to be liked. We want people to envy our lives, to think we’re cool. That’s why we stalk our ex-boyfriends or our current bf’s ex-girlfriends. We want reassurance that our lives are better than our enemy’s. We need the competition to thrive, so we post things to make our lives into a narrative, filled with drama, comedy, successes and failures.

3. How will WikiLeaks affect how government is run? Will transparency become a bigger priority if officials are afraid of being caught up in corruption? Or will we have to move toward a more militant and secretive state in order to protect sources and information?

I think our discussion in class today was really interesting regarding transparency. Wikileaks hopes to encourage transparency in government but is unable to provide transparency within its own organization. However, I do think the fear of being caught it enough to keep officials and governments more transparent. It could work the opposite way in cultures that already have a more militant or dictatorial governments but in systems that value democracy and power of the people, I believe it will work to the benefit of the governed.

Oct 29 2010

Response (Citizen Journalism/Politics)

Published by

1.) To combat this kind of elitist “aristocracy” of users, will there be an increase in Digg-like sites that cater to other diverse audiences? Will there ever be a site an aggregate news site that truly fulfills Digg’s promise of a “democratic” news source?

Just doing a quick search, I noticed that there were “Digg-like” sites catered to such audiences as bloggers, web developers, and designers. There are also sites like Stumbleupon, Reddit, and Fark which compete against Digg to act as aggregate news sites. I noticed that these sites also skew towards a similar flavor of posts as Digg does. There are a lot of news articles about technology, gaming, and web trends. One site that sticks out to me though is Stumbleupon which allows users to create a profile and tell the site what their interests are. Categories range from sports to art to gaming to politics. The site then presents random pages that fit the user’s criteria. Although I don’t see a lot of other sites doing this (especially news sites) I do think that the idea of users choosing their own news stories will continue to grow.

We talked in class about the idea of a “Daily Me” or a news site that presents a customized newspaper catered to specific user tastes. So one can imagine, in the near future, waking up in the morning, firing up the iPad, reading the news, and it presents all stories that YOU would be interested in). This sounds appealing to many users but is this really the direction that we should be heading in?

User control seems better than an elite group of gatekeepers on sites like Digg or news editors on big news sites, but are people going to be truly informed if they are only receiving news that they want to read and ignoring the rest? It could be argued that this is similar to traditional newspapers and people just taking out the sports section or life section. I just feel more uncomfortable with people creating their own news sources.

2.) It is inevitable that other future political candidates will  utilize social media in their campaigns but how will it be different from the election in 2008? The Web 2.0 world moves at a rapid pace so what new social media outlets will be utilized? And how else can candidates leverage the tools of interactivity to win elections?

Obama did an excellent job leveraging social media, like Facebook and Twitter, to help him in his campaign. I definitely see many politicians following suit. I am curious to see if politicians utilize other experimental social media tools such as location-based services, like Foursquare. I could visualize some really interesting uses for such applications. I could see users winning custom badges/stamps by attending rallies and speeches. I could also see politicians rewarding people who check-in at their events with exclusive announcements or campaign swag on the site.

I think that whatever new applications come out, politicians should not be afraid to take some risks and try new things. The younger voter power cannot be ignored and trying new techniques online can bring about big rewards in the long run.

Oct 27 2010

Response Post for Politics

Published by

Online media has changed the game of politics.  New opportunities in relation to public promotion and branding have both helped and hurt candidates in recent elections.  “Infoenterpropagainment” is a result of when politicians and the media blend political information with aspects of propaganda, including media or political bias and present it to the public in a way that entertains.  Candidates that choose to ignore this new media platform have not made it very far in their respective run for office.

Everyone knows the great example of the Obama vs McCain campaigns.  Never before had a political candidate jumped on the online bandwagon so heavily and soared to the top as an underdog, eventually taking it all with a White House win.  Sadly, McCain stuck mostly to traditional advertising and promotions, which isolated him from the younger voters found online.

Although most aspects of online political promotion seems positive, candidates need to watch their digital reputations as much as any other medium.  Before, photographers and television crews could uncover tidbits a political figure would rather keep personal about their lives.  Now, anyone can post anything about political figures and the story (true or not) spreads faster than wildfire.  The web provides new channels that keep candidates on their toes.

The public now has a new line directly to those wishing to represent them.  They can post questions on websites focused around discussions held by political figures.  They can follow tweets or “like” fan pages dedicated to those running for office.  Just as society obsesses over the whereabouts of celebrities, political figures are beginning to reach that status as well.  Using online media to promote ones self in the political arena has proved a successful catapult that all candidates must embrace in the future.

Oct 27 2010

Week 9 Response

Published by

In my first question, I asked how gatekeeping will change in the digital age.  I thought that the article’s discussion of a “gatewatcher” as opposed to a “gatekeeper” was a very good analogy.  The word gatekeeper implies to me a sense of elitism– and this is becoming the case in gatekeeping less and less.  Anyone can affect what is news, not just an elite few in a newsroom.  A good example of this is the “60 Minutes” issue a few years ago.  The program reported inaccurate facts about President Bush, and it was the blogosphere that called the prominent news empire on their mistake.  Because bloggers were up in arms about the mistake, and could prove the inaccuracies, staffers were fired and Dan Rather ultimately resigned.  These bloggers were gatewatchers– paying attention to what was reported, and making sure that it was accurate.  I think that a combination of gatekeeping and gatewatching is good model for journalism, specifically political journalism.  It keeps everyone honest, especially in topics where people are passionate and opinions can easily masquerade as facts.

In his article Lilleker says that audiences are becoming harder and harder to reach.  In my second question, I asked how audiences can be so hard to reach.  I want to expand on my point of view here.  I can see how audiences could be harder to reach purely because of the magnitude of options viewers have.  The drastic fragmentation of audiences could lead to people being harder to reach.  However, I think that with all of the technology available to us, people are just a click away.  It has never been easier to get feedback from users on stories and opinion.  And, this feedback often shapes the news.  When what I tweet shows up on the bottom of the screen on CNN– that is visible, that is making me very easy to reach as an audience member.  Thus, even though audiences are greatly fragmented, it is much easier to reach out to the audience you do hold.

In my last question, I asked if there was a link between citizen journalism participation and political participation in Iceland.  This political participation could come in the form of running for office, helping to campaign, or simply taking part in the democratic process by voting.  Indeed, it did create more interaction of citizens.  Ordinary citizens took to the web to discuss issues facing their country.  Political initiatives entered the national arena by people who did not have direct political authority.

Oct 27 2010

The Political “Brand”

Published by

In the pre-Internet era, politicians used to personally meet with their potential constituents, kiss babies, and have backyard visits to discuss the topics of the day. While this hasn’t changed, the Internet has allowed politicians to engage with people in unprecedented ways. Through social media and other devices, the gap between leaders and followers is smaller than ever. Or so it would seem…

Obama’s innovative feature www.mybarackobama.com harnessed the power of social networking to rally and mobilize users to aid the campaign surely contributed to the campaign’s success. With the site, users felt like they were directly contributed to the cause, and personally assisting their Barack Obama. They could converse with him over tweets, follow blogs, and participate in whatever other social media jargon seems be #trending these days.

For the first time in history, a national election was heavily determined through widespread interactive technologies. Rather than construct passive narratives that were pushed upon individual regions, Obama and McCain had to create dynamic personas that people of all backgrounds connect to. Whereas the candidates would’ve normally created various TV spots and campaign strategies unique to particular areas and demographics, nearly every part of their campaign was viewed on a national level thanks to the Internet.

This access and exposure, while supposedly making politicians more “transparent,” arguably lessened the credibility of both campaigns. While fudging your image to appeal to various demographics isn’t particularly noble, what developed was even worse: mass commodification  of politics. Citizens were no longer electing leaders, they were electing brands.

When Facebook users can “like” politician in the same way they would their favorite band or restaurant, something is miss. Maybe its just the way social networks operate, but a person liking “Barack Obama,” “Vampire Weekend,” “Panera” and “I hate that Sunday night feeling when you know you have school tomorrow!!” all on the same Facebook update says less about that person’s interests and more about the decline of political integrity.

Rather than understand the candidates as people, national campaigns run through social media tend to transform these candidates into mascots. Slogans like “Yes We Can” may be catchy and memorable, but what does it really add to the political discourse? Maybe its because we live in a country that depends on convenience and simplicity, but treating a political campaign like a fast food chain does not seem the right way to go.

Democracy already is an interactive medium. That’s what defines it as form of government. But the packaging and branding of national politics devalues an already low-value enterprise. The art of politics is notoriously slimy and murky. So I remind myself: “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.” While I approve of (most of) Obama’s political decisions, the Obama brand does not add credibility. Social media brings tremendous influence to the political spectrum, but when used as a marketing tool instead of an outreach device, politicians only further the stereotype of corruptible power.

Lilleker/Jackson explain: “So rather than merely amplifying the party brand, they can create their own, so that voters may vote for them as a personal brand… Web 2.0 interactivity can encourage a break-down of the rigid-party system, and move towards a more individualistic system.” Individual for the politician maybe, but not for the voter. While the distinction of a candidate as separate from the party brand is a step in the right direction, continuing to view politicians as “brands” subverts the democratic system. This may be just how politics work, but I’m still dreaming of a better way.

Oct 26 2010

Citizen v. Professional

Published by

It’s an ongoing battle between citizen journalists and professional journalists.

The definition of a citizen journalist from Goode’s article is essentially the same as a professional journalist. Both know how to blog, gather news, both share video and photos, and modify and monitor other news sources. What’s the big difference? According to citizens, nothing. Ask a professional, and it’s the fact that they have training, a degree, and a respect for the profession.

There’s definitely a rift between citizens and professionals. However, with the popularity and convenience of citizen journalism, it’s becoming harder for professional journalists to shut them out of the ranks. Citizens journalists are key in gathering news information. Think of the potential.

If a downtown shooting occurs, a brave citizen with a video phone can capture the footage right then and there, and  if they have 3G network or instant Internet access, the video can be on the web and accessible to millions in seconds. A news team has to be notified of the event (most likely by the citizen) gather the equipment and travel to the shooting to gather information. By that time, the event is over, the action is gone. The  news team has to get the footage from the citizen.

It’s not fun for the professional. Especially when the professional has worked for years in the field, has a degree, and professional training, only to be usurped by an ordinary citizen with a camera phone.

Defeat.

While professional journalists aren’t loving citizen journalists, politician’s don’t seem to mind them. In fact, coupled with social media, citizens journalists are a helpful tool for politics. Think of how Obama used social media in the last campaign. He set the precedent for future campaigns, so now every politician is going to have to employ social media. If people are posting videos and photos, and information, as long as it’s positive for their image, politicians are going to accept it.

However, there’s still an editing process that has to take place. Online editors are going to have a much harder time filtering through information simply because there’s more input from citizen journalists. Should editors then be traditional journalists or citizens?

The truth of it is, journalists don’t need a degree. We might hate it, but we don’t need one. If someone can do what we do without a degree, we might resent them for it, but we can’t hold onto that forever. As long as an editor has the ability to clearly look at material and decide what is newsworthy or not, and edit material correctly and fairly, then they’re in a good place. Throw some field experience in and it’s even better.

There’s no way to avoid the merging of citizens and journalists. I think journalists will always be labeled as journalists, and that tradition will hold sway over audiences, but citizens are also gathering news. They’ve got a long way to go before they become as credible as traditional journalists.

Oct 24 2010

Citizen Journalism and the Government

Published by

1. With the empowerment of citizen journalism, does it equate to a shift in power away from traditional government institutions to the people?

2. Presuming citizen journalism does result in greater watch-dog efforts over the government, who would act as the watch-dog for the journalists? Would the people regulate themselves or become similar to how Wikipedia is given credibility?

3. How could the Shadow Government initiatives in Iceland be replicated on a larger scale? What is the point where having more people causes more harm than good?

Oct 24 2010

Framing: Politics

Published by

1. What are different concepts of citizen journalism? How does it affect mainstream media and the way we use the Internet?

2. What are some of the ways that interactivity can change the ways politics operate? Will political candidates be more “in-touch” with constituents as we continue to live more and more of our lives in an online sphere? Or will it only add to an already existing disconnect with the digital divide?

3. How have other countries used the social networking tools that Obama used in his 2008 campaign? Have they seen the same amount of success?

Oct 24 2010

Week 9 Framing Questions

Published by

  1. The Goode article calls for a new form gatekeeping.  How can gatekeeping be monitored when there is a large number of people setting the agenda for the news?
  2. In the Lilleker article, he states that audiences are getting harder to reach.  I would argue that this is incorrect.  With the rise of the Internet, social networking, and citizen journalism, people are easier to reach than ever.  How is it that people can be so involved and yet so hard to reach out to?
  3. With all of the articles, there is a common theme of  citizen journalism and politics.  Specifically in Iceland, is there a link between high citizen journalism participation and high political participation?

Oct 24 2010

Framing Questions for Politics

Published by

Week 9: Politics

Social news, citizen journalism and democracy
– Luke Goode

1. What is metajournalism and how does it play a role in our society?  Does metajournalism or citizen journalism have more positive potential in our world today?

2. Will we see a time when citizen journalism replaces professional journalism entirely?

3. Are metajournalism and citizen journalism extensions of active audience engagement or a rupture in the previously settled producer-consumer dichotomy?

Interactivity and Branding, public political communication as a marketing tool
– Darren G. Lilleker and Nigel Jackson

1. After seeing the impact of social and online marketing during the 2008 presidential election, is is safe to say that future candidates will have no shot at winning without embracing digital branding?

2. When it comes to public scrutiny of political figures running for office, have we lost sight in today’s digital world of  what the politician actually stands for compared to candidates from historic times when media exposure was much more limited (mainly print)?  Has digital exposure of candidates done more harm than good or vice versa?

Shadow Governments: An Icelandic Experiment in Participatory Governance and Social Change
– Derek Lackaff and Gunnar Grimsson

1. Why have people turned to public actors of today to be the leaders of tomorrow?  Is this fair and a smart move overall?