Interview with Aldon Hynes

Over the past week, I've exchanged a few emails with Aldon Hynes, writer of Orient Lodge, a blog that revolves around the intersections of technology and different parts of the world. Aldon had some interesting things to say, especially in regards to Twitter, and how the Atlantic should utilize the technology.

Aldon suggested that the Atlantic needs to start using Twitter immediately, as in yesterday:

So, what does this mean for the Atlantic? They need to start using Twitter. Immediately. Any time a new story goes up on their website, it should be posted on Twitter. Whenever they are working on a story, they should be searching, and asking for tips on Twitter. They should add more user generated video and pictures. Ideally, they should set things up so that they can cut to a good live feed as it is happening.

I'm with Mr. Hynes on this. I think that Twitter could end up being an invaluable tool, a piece of tech that could help revolutionize the way that we find our news. If the Atlantic could stay on the cutting edge of that, by keeping reporters in the field microblogging at all times, our website could become a go-to spot for people. While Twitter may seem like a novelty to mainstream America today, there is no saying where it could be in 2010 or 2012. There's a real, distinct possibility that Twitter could end up as the next MySpace or Facebook, the Social Networks du jour.

However, Aldon was also quick to point out that for all we know, Twitter could have become old news by 2012, maybe 2010. With the speed at which the internet moves and evolves, technologies are usually quickly used and then thrown aside for something better:

It is not clear if it will be Twitter, or some other microblogging service that will be the top microblog in 2012. Afterall, the hot social networks in 2004 were sites like Tribe, Friendster, and Orkut, each of which has floundered. A key area for microblogging with be better catergorization, aggregation, and searching.

In other words, microblogging isn't a proven, tested commodity and there is definite room for improvement. Still, if the Atlantic wants to stay on top of the situation and out in front of the pack, Twitter is the first step. Yet, it'll also be important to keep an ear to the ground and quickly adapt to whatever next big thing seems down the pipeline. When that new tech seems ready to launch, the Atlantic needs to be one of the prominant places that takes something of a risk and jumps on early. Early adopters may get burned in some aspects but there is an undeniable novelty appeal that will draw people to the site. If it seems like what The Atlantic thought was the next big thing ends up as the next Titantic, you just need to quickly move on and hope that your innovative and adventurous thinking has brought some people to the site that otherwise, wouldn't have been there.

Mr. Hynes clued in on Ron Paul as the candidate who seemed to be the most technologically advanced in the past election. While the American mainstream, the Joe Six Packs of the world, may have believed that Obama was running a cutting edge campaign in term of tech, it was Paul who really led the tech charge, which is unsurprising, given his popularity inside the online tech community.

Mr. Hynes:

With that, I've often criticized the 2008 candidates for lacking an 'invitation to innovate'. The Dean campaign had it. The Ron Paul campaign sort of had it. The Lamont campaign did a good job of it. Right now, it is the long shots that get the importance of the invitation to innovate, but I hope and believe that this will expand. I do believe that the Obama campaign came the closest to it in the 2008 cycle of the major candidates.

Obama certainly utilized a variety of different online platforms as organizing tools but he never really utilized technologies that weren't "mainstream". We'll probably look back at the 2008 election and recognize that between the two major party candidates, Obama was far out in front in terms of exciting use of the internet, yet it doesn't necessarily mean that he was using exciting parts of the internet. Sure, he utilized the social networks to meaningful end and used YouTube and the like as a means to spread ads, behind-the-scenes features and interviews, but in terms of trying out a tech that the typical everyday American doesn't use, it wasn't exactly groundbreaking. However, the question that is raised from this is: Does it matter that he used some cutting edge tech if it doesn't reach a lot of voters? I suppose, that the answer is a simple no. With the type of populist politics that Obama utilized in the campaign, the most important thing was reaching mass groups of people, not specialize niche markets.

More later with Aldon Hynes.

Clinton as SoS?

It seems as if the big news of the moment is that Hilary Clinton has been offered the position of Secretary of State in Barack Obama's cabinet, a position she is supposedly strongly considering. While I believe Clinton would be a fine SoS and have no questions about her abilities to do the job, my questions lie in the category of "How does this affect her political future?". As SoS, the experience she would pick up in the next 4 (or 8) years would be invaluable, making her as educated and prepared a candidate in 2016 as anyone in recent memory. Even in this year's election, many people found Hilary to be a strong candidate based on her stance on the issues. The years as a first lady obviously helped that and her work in Congress has been excellent prep as well. Throw SoS into that mix and you might have the startings of a very strong candidate in 2016. It might be wishful thinking on my part but if the grand ol' USA could follow up its first African American president with its first Woman President, it could establish the country as not a backwards thinking, socially conservative country but rather a visionary and progressive nation ready to lead the world in the 21st century.

What Do I Do Now?

From our friends at The Onion. We briefly spoke about election withdrawal and what happens after the election last night. As always, The Onion has managed to beautifully skewer the situation. Given how emotionally tied into the campaign Obama supporters were, the fact that their may be a void for some is really not that far-fetched. I, for one, have a few friends who moved away from their homes and jobs to work in crucial states for Obama. The question as to what they will do after the campaign, win or lose, has come up a couple of times and none of them have much of an answer. We all followed this election very closely and now, with its passing, what's next?

Obama's Change

Some have doubted whether or not Obama's message of change will continue to translate strongly to his work as the President. This article seems to suggest that it won't take long to prove those doubters wrong.

Obama's Acceptance Speech

Because, why not? It's history.

President Obama!

Who?

Happy Friday before the election!

McCain and the Bloggers

An interesting article/Q&A that I noticed on The Huffington Post that I'll link to. Its a Q&A with Robert Draper, the author of a recent NY Times Magazine article on McCain. I found two of the questions particularly interesting/pertinent.

WWD: Did it help that you had only one story to write, as opposed to filing every 30 seconds?
R.D.: Unlike some of the journalists for not only the daily papers but for networks, who have to constantly blog as well as file stories, I could be a little more leisurely, and beyond that, maintain a big-picture perspective. And frankly, the McCain campaign was much more responsive to that approach. They’ve come to be rather disdainful of the hyper-blogging that takes place on the press bus, and they think it has increased this mind-set of “gotcha” journalism, where every time John McCain would say something, instead of asking a follow-up question, people would go scurry off to their laptops and post to their blogs. And the McCain campaign believes that’s not what journalism ought to be. I’m not positing myself as some kind of superior journalist, it’s just that the format of long-form journalism allows me to be a little more leisurely, allows me to look at the longer view of things, and allows me two-and-a-half months on a single story.

WWD: You mentioned that the McCain campaign thinks that blogging is inimical to journalism. Do you think it’s true what they said in your story, that reporters are “primarily young, snarky, blog-obsessed and liberal?”
R.D.: Oh, yes, I think it’s true, but I don’t think it’s a fatal impediment. Steve Schmidt and Mark Salter and others who would characterize the media these days in such a way have it about right, except that I also found that a lot of these younger journalists who were my companions aboard the Straight Talk Express were extremely diligent, incredibly hardworking, extremely intelligent and very much of a mind to give the McCain campaign a fair shake. I do think that they are impeded by the imperatives of the trade now…you’re in this eternal footrace, with so many competitors, to get something out that’s fresh and hot and get it out quickly. But Obama’s people have coped with it, and I think that McCain’s people have coped with it less well.
I know a lot of people covering the Obama campaign who are displeased with the level of access being given them, and they have concerns with what an Obama administration would look like in that regard. But they’re also not made out to be the enemy.…And there is a level of disdain that is palpable in the McCain campaign that does not exist in the Obama campaign, and I cannot believe that that is helpful to McCain’s efforts.

Its certainly worth the read. It seems like its playing into the idea that I've been tracking a bit, the idea that McCain and his campaign are reluctant to embrace new media correctly (i.e. blogging, YouTube). While it probably has not been the fatal flaw of the campaign, its a clear disadvantage. One only needs to do a basic search of the net to see an overwhelmingly majority of bloggers/online journalists favoring Obama/Biden. With the internet expanding at the rate that it is, with new capabilities popping up each day, I don't think its a mistake that the more technologically advanced campaign is winning.

Obama's Infomercial

As the evening draws closer, so does Barack Obama's long discussed 30 minute advertisement in which, up to today, nobody really knew what to think of it. Then, the Obama campaign released a teaser of sorts to the NY Times, in which, the basic outline of his address tonight is outlined. The Huffington Post also gives more detail.

Initially, this was an idea that I was skeptical about. I felt like all that could come from it was some slip that would give McCain some out of left field material to bring the last week of the campaign home. However, as time has passed and we've gotten closer to tonight, Obama's lead has remained steady and McCain seems to be reeling. Even if McCain somehow finds material from tonight's special, we've reached a possible point of no return. By the time McCain can begin airing or speaking about Obama's program, it'll be Thursday, the 30th, at the earliest, 5 days until the election. Is that enough time to drastically alter the election? Probably not.

The other question remains is that, will Obama even give McCain any material? In class on Monday, there seemed to be some fears expressed that McCain might find something in the 30 minute address. Yet, in the first 2 months of the general election campaign, Obama has given McCain almost no material upon which to work from. Why should the last 30 minutes be any different? Up to this point, Obama's campaign has quickly and decisively countered many of McCain's accusations and speaking points. Overall, it would be difficult to argue otherwise, to argue that McCain has run the better campaign. It won't change tonight. For those waiting for Obama to screw up, they'll have to keep waiting. Tonight won't be it.

Electoral Map Tips to Obama

It seems like everyone is starting to believe that Obama has this thing wrapped up. MSNBC's blog First Read has the electoral college giving Obama the requisite 270 for the win. With a week to go until the people hit the polls, can McCain possibly come back? I don't see anything significantly swinging the election one way or another. It'll be interesting to see that with only 8 days to go, how many media outlets start to try and declare who the winner will be.

Health of the Candidates

We've previously discussed the idea as to what from the candidate's private life should become public knowledge. It seemed that the consensus was that the medical history of the involved parties should be made public, so that the voters of the country have an idea as to what they're going to be dealing with over the course of the next 4 years. In tomorrow's NY Times, a new article investigating the candidate's health will be featured. You can read the article on the Times website now. The article is an in-depth look into the medical histories of each candidate with the exception of Palin, who has volunteered nothing in terms of information, which keeps with the intense protection the McCain camp has attempted to utilize for Palin. Regardless, its an interesting (and intensive) read worth the time it takes to click through 5 pages.

Debate Reactions

It seems like today's reactions to the final debate last night have been overwhelmingly positive for Obama. While no one seems to insist that Obama covered any new ground, his tried and true, steady as she goes method of running down the clock to Election Day seemed like a success. I thought McCain had his strongest debate to date but still at times seemed erratic and unfocused, jumping from issue to issue within the course of a few sentences. From the NY Times:

It seemed as if Mr. McCain was veering from one hot button to another, pressing them all, hoping to goad Mr. Obama into an outburst or a mistake that would alter the shape of the race in its last three weeks.

For the most part, Obama seemed his usual self, refusing to be dragged into any sort of petty tit-for-tat with McCain over some incisive topics, i.e. ACORN and William Ayers. When prompted, Obama clearly and efficiently laid out his history with both ACORN and Ayers and seemed to make a convincing case on both.



Most seem to agree that McCain's strongest line came when he stated he was not President Bush, seen here:



However, people just seem to think that McCain came up short. Reports can be found as follows:

Boston Globe (1)(2)(3)
NY Times (1)(2)
LA Times
Washington Post (1)(2)(3)

McCain and Corporate America

It seems as if the media is ready to write off this election and if the story in today's WSJ is any indication, it may be time for the rest of us. For a Republican to be struggling to connect with the Corporate America that any good GOP nominee should own is a serious problem. As was mentioned in class last night, the Republicans seem to be stuck with a candidate that they don't like and even if they do, have trouble seeing said candidate lasting any longer than a single term. A recent poll (and article), released by the Washington Post and ABC News, suggests that McCain is rapidly losing support in his own party:

McCain has made little headway in his attempts to convince voters that Obama is too "risky" or too "liberal." Rather, recent strategic shifts may have hurt the Republican nominee, who now has higher negative ratings than his rival and is seen as mostly attacking his opponent rather than addressing the issues that voters care about. Even McCain's supporters are now less enthusiastic about his candidacy, returning to levels not seen since before the Republican National Convention .

It seems like there is no good news coming out of the McCain camp even though they have Obama right where they want him.

A "Nicer" Campaign

McCain/Palin are switching it up again after being jumped on by just about everyone for the negative, mob like campaign they were running the previous week. It seems like they are getting increasingly desperate given the larger leads that Obama/Biden continue to open up on them.

McCain Sticks Up for His Boys (and Girls)

It'll be interesting to see if McCain and his crowds will continue to arise as an issue. In recent weeks, more and more reports are popping up in regards to (borderline) audience hate speech taking part at McCain rallies, speech McCain's camp is now defending. The language has ranged from calling Obama anything from a terrorist to outright cries to of killing Obama. Quite frankly, this type of stuff is beyond disturbing and the fact that the McCain camp is not strongly discouraging/denouncing it is a cause for alarm. Its one thing for opponents to disagree and even dislike the other. However, to promote and condone this type of mob mentality is disgusting.

It appears that the media is picking up on this strongly as a simple GoogleNews search of "McCain Rallies Kill Him" (the scariest thing to come from the crowds) brings up a great deal of articles relating to the subject. While many (scratch that; almost all) of the articles are comdeming in nature, thats to be expecting from rational thinking human beings. Until McCain comes out to denounce the terrible nature of this mentality, it'll only continue to spiral out of control, hopefully without any sort of consequences. However, its not difficult to think, that if the guilty McCain supporters continue to act in such a manner, the situation could turn ugly quickly when other people of opposing viewpoints get involved. Its certainly not something I condone, rather something I fear but it's not far fetched to think that these rallies could turn violent if this isn't controlled.

Reaction to the Debate: Moderators

Some discussion has arisen of the role of the moderators in the debates in the wake of Gwen Ifill being chosen to host the VP debate. Many felt that the fact that Ifill has a book coming out on the topic of race in the Obama age would handcuff Ifill from truly moderating and a solid group felt that it did. There was worry that any sort of limitation Ifill put on Palin would be construed as unfair and political versus actually trying to get an answer from a candidate.

After last night's Presidential debate, it seems as if some are just as unhappy with the role the moderator played. While watching the debate, the fact that Brokaw was desperately attempting to keep the candidates under the time constraints was pretty evident. I don't think I would call Brokaw's job "terrible" but it was something less than stellar. Even when he tried to stop the candidates, they would frequently push anyway often times with Brokaw allowing it to happen. I agree with Mitchell's idea that the second half of the debate seemed all too familiar given the first hour and a half that we sat through a few weeks ago. For Obama, who seemed to have the consensus that he won the first debate, it must be a positive that he didn't have to sway from the ideas/talking points that already won. For McCain, who is facing increasingly desperate times, the fact that he had to regurgitate previously explained ideas can't be good for the campaign.

The Election to This Point

From Slate:

The Presidential Debate in 90 Seconds

I forgot to mention this tonight in class but this is about as video manipulation as you can. Reducing a 90 minute debate to 90 seconds. Buckle up.


While its obviously gimmicky, it does provide the viewer with a suprisingly efficient summation of the night's events. It really works to point out many of the topics that we discussed tonight in class. In particular, the moment of the rapid repetition of Reagan stands out as we discussed. The McCain campaign recognizes that for them to align themselves with the current White House would be political suicide. However, for conservatives and even the so-called "Reagan Democrats", the Reagan administration was a shining light in conservative presidencies, one fondly remembered by right wingers around the country.

If McCain/Palin can effectively denote the ticket as a Reagan/Bush for the 21st century, its something the conservative base would most likely rally around, a key issue for the campaign, especially after the events with the economic bailout falling through today. As many are reporting, McCain came back to Washington last week promising to rally the House GOPs. He was unable to do that, with roughly 60% of House Republicans voting down the bill. So not only has McCain been unable to get something done in Washington, the whole reason for the campaign suspension, he also had to endure the hullabaloo that ensued (as we highlighted tonight).

Voters Do The Google

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.

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.