An interesting glimpse into what exactly we, the people, search for in regards to our presidential candidates. I found this excerpt particularly frank:
"Ranking even above that No. 10 slot in mid-September was "Barack Obama antichrist," a manifestation of a list — disseminated via viral emails — of parallels between Obama and the villain in an apocryphal translation of the Book of Revelation. Over 20% of those searching the "antichrist" story clicked through to Snopes.com, an urban legend clearinghouse that brands the story "FALSE" with a trademark red icon. And the Snopes site itself is a common search term for truth-squadders who pair them with candidates’ names."
At least it was proven false. I mean, we can't have the antichrist in office. That wouldn't be good.
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Internet. Show all posts
Monday, September 29, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
YouTube and User-Created Media
For what is the first presidential election in the era of YouTube, what is its impact? The popular site provides an instant access point to everything and anything one could possibly want in regards to election coverage. A simple search can find whole "official" channels run by both the Obama and McCain camps, each of which features hundreds of videos, ranging from campaign advertisments to "favorite" videos of each group. From these two channels, one can watch literally every bit of advertisements (or propaganda?) both campaigns have created since their inception, all with a small click of the mouse.
Previously, voters were subjected only to advertisements when they're paid to air but with YouTube, people no longer have to wait to see these ads. Even with the slightest bit of internet saavy, each of these videos can be emailed, IMed, embedded into blogs, etc. to whomever one would like to see them. It opens up a number of new (and quite frankly exciting) channels for grassroot movements to start. No longer are each individual campaigns solely responsible for the spread of their ads. It now can be done by the people, if they so choose.
Equally as interesting is the ability for voters to post user-created content, allowing for the instant delivery of homemade videos that cost nothing to air. These range from attacking, to silly, to celebratory but each are created by groups unaffliated with either of the campaigns. Each of these have been watched thousands of times and for the most part, they're minor pieces. However, its clear that the ability for users/voters, to have their opinions heard is unlike it has ever been before. With this, do YouTube users become part of the media? Are these lo-fi video and audio clips being produced the same as any given CBS or NBC Evening news pieces without the large budgets? They're being viewed. Who's viewing them?
More important events are even easier to view. I can sit down and watch Obama's DNC speech or McCain's RNC speech whenever I please. In fact, both of those videos have been watched over 100,000 times (in Obama's case, it is 537,532 times). Those are some large numbers of viewers who have sit down to watch even a portion of those two speeches. Had this been any other election (even 2004), that ability was non-existant. How does the ability to review these would-be major turning points in the election affect voters?
Really, the only YouTube vid that has been noticed by the mainstream media has been the incredibly popular (over 9 million views) Obama Girl. When this was released back in 2007, it was something of a sensation, breaking out of cyberspace to touch the everyday. While it was not supported by either campaign, I can't help but believe that it certainly brought a great deal more exposure and hype to Obama's then primary run.
Previously, voters were subjected only to advertisements when they're paid to air but with YouTube, people no longer have to wait to see these ads. Even with the slightest bit of internet saavy, each of these videos can be emailed, IMed, embedded into blogs, etc. to whomever one would like to see them. It opens up a number of new (and quite frankly exciting) channels for grassroot movements to start. No longer are each individual campaigns solely responsible for the spread of their ads. It now can be done by the people, if they so choose.
Equally as interesting is the ability for voters to post user-created content, allowing for the instant delivery of homemade videos that cost nothing to air. These range from attacking, to silly, to celebratory but each are created by groups unaffliated with either of the campaigns. Each of these have been watched thousands of times and for the most part, they're minor pieces. However, its clear that the ability for users/voters, to have their opinions heard is unlike it has ever been before. With this, do YouTube users become part of the media? Are these lo-fi video and audio clips being produced the same as any given CBS or NBC Evening news pieces without the large budgets? They're being viewed. Who's viewing them?
More important events are even easier to view. I can sit down and watch Obama's DNC speech or McCain's RNC speech whenever I please. In fact, both of those videos have been watched over 100,000 times (in Obama's case, it is 537,532 times). Those are some large numbers of viewers who have sit down to watch even a portion of those two speeches. Had this been any other election (even 2004), that ability was non-existant. How does the ability to review these would-be major turning points in the election affect voters?
Really, the only YouTube vid that has been noticed by the mainstream media has been the incredibly popular (over 9 million views) Obama Girl. When this was released back in 2007, it was something of a sensation, breaking out of cyberspace to touch the everyday. While it was not supported by either campaign, I can't help but believe that it certainly brought a great deal more exposure and hype to Obama's then primary run.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
