Online Journalism, Election, and Democracy

For election/voting issues, Brad Friedman, the owner of www.bradblog.com, deserves lots of credit. In 2005, he discovered and made public the voting issues in the 2004 election. His investigation showed that “The American Center for Voting Rights” was created only to distract the public from what really happened in Ohioin November, 2004. The Los Angeles Times states that he is “the state’s most persistent blogger-watchdog on the dangers of voting technology”. As an example, on February 5, 2008 (Super Tuesday), his blog reveals that “voters face long lines in Georgiaas photo ID Laws and Diebold’s crashing E-Pollbook system slow process”.

            The Internet is bringing so much information, debate, controversy, and coverage of the Presidential election. As I previously wrote, “The presidential campaign for the 2008 election has been exciting. With new technology and cultural changes, the voters had different expectations that required the adjustment of their campaigns to fit the needs and demands of the American people. In 2004, Dean’s campaign was one of the first to utilize the medium of Internet media to strengthen the power of his supporters. Now, many notable current presidential candidates have discovered the power of the World Wide Web”.

The medium that the campaigns employ is the Internet, but the philosophy that they utilize is the idea of decentralizing control. This philosophy makes it easier for us “commoners” to get more involved in communication, collaboration, conversation, deliberation, affinity, documentation, research, etc.—and isn’t that the ultimate goal of democracy, or so called “extreme democracy”?

Obama and McCain’s Presidential Digital Campaign

            The current generation is defined by its interactions with technology. The presidential candidates’ relationships with technology are therefore very important, because it is one way of measuring the ability of the candidate to relate to his future constituency.

            There are many areas in the campaign where age is irrelevant. However, it is common knowledge and pretty much taken for granted that the younger generations are more fluent in technological operations. Therefore, it is not entirely surprising that Obama, who is younger than his opponent by about three decades, and his similarly young staffers show an advantage in the digital aspect of the campaign.

            Pundits have praised the Obama campaign’s ability to master “Facebook politics” and utilize social networking sites like MySpace, Twitter and YouTube for fundraising. (Cohen). Other commentators have noticed that Obama has “three technological devices strapped to his waist.” (Kestenbaum) Supporters of his campaign may sign up to get regular text messages from “Obama” himself, asking them to turn their attention to a certain issue, to make sure they are registered to vote, and especially to ask for campaign contributions. All of the technological aspects of Obama’s campaign don’t just perform a direct, one-dimension function: in addition to getting information out there, these methods of communicating redefine his image. His structure of command seems almost horizontal, giving off the impression that all of his many supporters are equally accessible and important.

 

            McCain himself is not so in touch with technology. He referred to himself as a “computer illiterate” during the Republican primary (Kestenbaum) and carries around a relatively limited single Razr phone, in contrast to Obama’s three Blackberry devices. However, though his supporters don’t get regular text messages and the official McCain website isn’t mobile yet, McCain undoubtedly has some incredibly competent staffers to carry the technological load, be it doing research or soliciting financial support.        

Yet there is a great distinction between that which is technologically advanced and that which seems to be. In our way of conceptualizing the abilities of the computer and other digital methods of communicating, technology is synonymous with transparency. Technology makes us, the public, feel closer to what’s going on “on the inside.” Thus, it’s not Obama’s Facebook page or text messages that really make him appeal more to the younger generation: it’s simply the illusion that our opinion, our perspective, actually matters.

The Presidential Online Campaigning as a New Venue for Politics

The presidential campaign for the 2008 election is sure to be exciting. With new technology and cultural changes, the voters have different expectations that require the adjustment of their campaigns to fit the needs and demands of the American people. In 2004, Dean’s campaign was one of the first to utilize the medium of Internet media to strengthen the power of his supporters. Now, many notable current presidential candidates have discovered the power of the World Wide Web.

In his recently published book, The First Campaign: Globalization, the Web, and the Race for the White House, Garrett M. Graff describes how social networks, blogs, and other new technology tools are changing politics and presidential campaigns, and what “flattening of the world” means for the 2008 election. “The 2008 presidential campaign will be like none in recent memory: the first campaign in fifty years in which both the Democrats and the Republicans must nominate a new candidate, and the first ever in which the issues of globalization and technology will decide the outcome.”

As Garrett writes in the Washingtonian (December, 2007), “in the 2008 election, four tools-online video, cell phones, blogs, and social networking sites-provide unparalleled power to ordinary voters and have created a new infrastructure for launching- and rebutting –political attacks.” In this context, the July 23 Democratic YouTube/CNN debate was the first of “officially –sanctioned” debates, which asked the questions submitted through online video, and which made history in allowing regular people from across the country to have their own opinions in the debate.

People like to say that the Democrats have the competitive advantage, because they have been better using the Internet giving ordinary Americans access to the tools they need to change the election with the click of a mouse. The technology used by MoveOn and Meetup gave the isolated people the possibility to unite and organize. For awhile, the Democratic Party staffers have been tracking the Republican candidates on videos, which are uploaded directly to a special section of Democrats.org called FlipperTV. Voters can download the video, re-mix it, add music, and use it as they wish. This way, voters can see what the candidates do and say while they are not on CNN or Fox News. They are different people when they don’t think the cameras are rolling. An example is the videotaped words of Rudy Giuliani at the Conservative Political Action Conference in March 2007. Also, the Democratic Party is testing a brand new voter contact system that will give state parties, campaigns, and individual activists the critical tools they need to get out the vote on Election Day.

Perhaps most surprising is the use of Internet media by Ron Paul’s campaign. The candidate is almost opposite of the web’s most common users, who are generally young and liberal. Paul is among the oldest of the presidential hopefuls at 71 years old and he has labeled himself as a “true conservative.” Yet Paul’s supporters, encouraged by his online campaigning, have showed themselves to be active supporters in new mediums of communication, such as online polls and text messages. (“Ron Paul Builds Campaign on the Web”, CNS News) His initiatives enable to reach audiences that otherwise might not have been interested by adopting of sites such as Twitter.

Democrat candidate John Edwards has launched an online petition drive, enabling voters to pledge to not vote for candidates who accept campaign cash from lobbying firms or special interest political action organizations (in other words, those who buy support). By putting the petition online, Edwards was able to make the voters, wherever they are, feel empowered. The interest is accessible to everyone, everywhere, and a petition could not have been organized without this medium.

Another Republican candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has also used the Internet to his advantage. He used the specific (and extremely popular, especially in the younger generation) YouTube site, where one can broadcast videos. Giuliani’s people put a video of 9/11 dedications, reminding the public of Giuliani’s actions as New York City mayor during the time. Since this video is online, he has managed to combine the two arguably most influential media tools: the Internet and Television. The visual of the video combined with the accessibility of the Internet makes a very clever marketing scheme.

Hilary Clinton has employed the web as well and was the first to announce her campaign online. She, too, uses different kinds of media to reach a wider audience. Acknowledging the cultural phenomenon of “Oprah-like” talk shows, she is trying to communicate with her supporters (and hopefully non-supporters) through chatting—conversation over the Internet. (“The power of online campaigning”, BBC News).

Thus, it is indisputable that the very intelligent people who run their campaigns have learned from history– specifically Howard Dean’s presidential online campaign–that the Internet is big, powerful, and now, unavoidable.  Meanwhile, the emergence of the Web as a political tool has shaken up the campaign process, leaving front-runners vulnerable right up until Election Day.”

More to follow about how Barack Obama and John McCain run their presidential campaigns by using the Internet mediums.

Howard Dean’s Online Campaign

Howard Dean’s campaign was unlike those of his contemporaries. He utilized a relatively new media form—the social media/web 2.0 applications—in a unique and efficient way. Edward Cone wrote in The Marketing of a President: “Using a variety of Internet tools, from the electronic journals known as weblogs to social networking sites, the Dean campaign has propelled the Vermont doctor from near -anonymity to the front of the Democrat pack aiming to replace George W. Bush as chief executive of the United States.”

However, using the web to promote Dean was not a simple operation. The internet’s influence was much larger in scope than we typically think: in addition to being another venue for increasing support, such as the radio or TV, utilization of the web was also an intermediary step in the sense that it gathered and organized people who served as another, stronger venue for information. In a May 2003 post to the Dean of America weblog, Joe Trippi announced his vision that social technology and networks should be used as tools for democracy, advocacy, and fundraising. His vision became the focus of Deanspace, an open source project aimed to create the variety of Internet tools, such as blogs, forums, calendars, and RSSs (Really Simple Syndication).

Perhaps the best way to explain the success of the online campaigning is that the focus is, surprisingly, not on the Internet community— it strives to motivate people into action offline. Dean’s online campaign consisted of three elements which differentiated it from the campaigns of his contemporaries.

As we all know, one of the most crucial—and controversial—parts of campaigning is fundraising. Running for office is expensive, and it is necessary to figure out some way to get people to donate their money. Dean’s team was able to raise $7.4 million in online donations in the third quarter of 2003—a record. The notable thing to look at here is not necessarily the total amount. By using online fundraising, the big totals are not characterized by a few enormous donations (such as is common with many high profile candidates). On the contrary, with the Internet, the donations are much smaller in amount, yet much greater in quantity. The Internet enables and convinces more people to participate even though they aren’t billionaires—in general, online donors are younger. This translates into the same amount of money… with exponentially more votes. And votes are, after all, what really matters.

Dean’s campaign utilized a variety of Internet mediums, including social networks and electronic journals (blogs), to both give information and aggregate people. The first was Meetup, a service that gets local volunteers together. Supporters are able to take matters into their own hands, which has additional benefits of allowing the very busy people in Dean’s campaign to delegate responsibility. In addition to being a fantastic source of garnering support, it is incredibly efficient.

Dean’s online campaign got another boost from blogs, in which others can post opinions, support, and links for information. This is an additional way of spreading out the campaign, making the supporters (read: voters) responsible. One of the most important components of the 2004 Presidential campaign was “Blog for America, which served as a nerve center for Governor Howard Dean’s insurgent presidential campaign.”

The creators of Dean’s campaign should be applauded not simply for their use of the Internet. Their foresight and efficiency made the campaign more successful, easier to manage, and accessible to billions of people. The medium that they employed was the Internet, but the philosophy that they utilized was the idea of decentralizing control. This philosophy made it easier for us “commoners” to get more involved in communications, collaboration, conversation, deliberation, attraction, affinity, documentation, research, etc.—and isn’t that the ultimate goal of democracy, or of so called “extreme democracy“?