After reading this article in the New York Times, I was surprised to find out how much new media outlets, such as Facebook, YouTube, and the web completely covered the 2008 campaigns of Barrack Obama and John McCain and that they occasionlly dominated the political information scene over older media providers, such as newspapers and cable news. These newer providers redefined the way political news was being transmitted to American citizens. Obama’s Facebook group totalled over 2.3 million members, and the popularity of his campaign videos on YouTube in addition to full debate coverage on YouTube shifted American viewers from receiving online information rather than information from TV and newspapers. As an example of this profound change, Videos mentioning either Barrack Obama or John McCain seen on YouTube have been viewed over 2.3 billion times, according to the measurement firm TubeMogul. One huge plus of this online boom of information is that with such a large amount of file-sharing going on in Web 2.0, campaigns realized the information they send out on the Web can be easily, redistributed, remixed, and resent to tons of others web users. An interesting example of the popularity of media outlets online is the fact that more peole watched Sarah Palin’s comedy sketch online than people did on the actual live SNL broadcast. Not only did her apperarance on SNL get a lot of views, but also it defined her as a candidate. The Web 2.0 revolution was really at play in the campaigning season, and it showed just how influential the web really is.
-DD
wow, your tittle is almost the exact same as the post a few below you… embarrassing…
Comment by jtannenbaum — November 6, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
and thats supposed to say ‘title’
Comment by jtannenbaum — November 6, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
awkward…
Comment by jpodolnick — November 9, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Your observations about the role of Web 2.0 in the recent election are very keen. The question is whether or not Web 2.0 is good or bad for democracy. On one hand, more people were involved in viewing election coverage by viewing clips on youtube and using facebook election apps. However, the news is already spun once by the media. When regular non-media citizens, who don’t necessarily care to attempt to maintain objectivity of political coverage using Web 2.0, the news is spun yet again. To address your SNL-Palin example, when a skit is viewed live, the viewer can make his or her own judgement without any outside influence. However, when viewing the skit at a later time on youtube or on a personal blog, the viewer could be influenced by comments surrounding the clip or by comments the poster makes before the clip is played. This method leaves less time for the viewer to for his or her own uninfluenced opinion. Its one thing to see the news life- its another to view the news in a medium in which people feel as if they are authorities on the subject. Whether or not Web 2.0 is good or bed democracy, we can be sure that it will continue to be a huge influence in politics from this day forward.
Comment by befriedman — December 31, 2008 @ 2:08 am