Campaigning in Web 2.0

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

Campaigns in a Web 2.0 World

2.6 million people voted early in the ever-scrutinized swing state of Florida, pushing the total for early/absentee voting in that state beyond 30% of the electorate. On the eve of one of the most participatory presidential elections in US history, a question on the minds of many political junkies is this: Why do we suddenly care enough to participate in our electoral process?

Is this November’s record-breaking turnout the result of a perfect storm, one which includes an economic crisis, a stunningly unpopular incumbent, the appearance of unlikely candidate with star qualities? Tomorrow, when (hopefully) the winner of this contest is announced, will we quietly ease back into our routines of apathy and passivity? Or has a larger force forever changed the way we think and act politically? In other words, are we now somehow hard-wired for greater political participation?

An article in yesterday’s New York Times suggests that increased political participation may be here to stay and attributes it at least in part to media convergence. Surely it comes as no surprise that our increasingly networked world affords us much richer and more powerful opportunities to swap messages and collaborate, but this feels somehow bigger than mere adoption of technology. This election season model came swiftly, and developed organically, rather than by deliberate design.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, thinks that we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to online collaboration. There’s no doubt–we live in exciting times.

W. Movie

The W. movie is coming to theaters soon.  The movie is a dramatic comedy and will dive into the personal, political, and psychological evolution of the current President.  According to the director Mr. Stone, the movie is not overly serious but it is a serious subject.  The movie will feature scenes with Bush as a young drunk partygoer as well as some controversial dialogue between Bush and his father.  Whether you love him or hate him, there is no question that Bush is a very controversial political figure.

 

According to Stone, the movie will appeal to both Democrats and Republicans and could be viewed as sympathetic towards Bush.  However, since Stone has long been known as an outspoken Democrat can the movie be fair and balanced?

 

Stone has taken a huge rick in creating this movie but will it pay off?  Stone has added to the hype of this movie by releasing it right before the 2008 presidential election hoping to have an effect on the population.  Will he affect the masses or just piss people off?  Is this movie disrespectful to Bush?  Should Stone have waited a few years or after Bush was dead before creating the movie?  When do you think this issue has gone too far?

 

Please respond with answers to the questions or any other comments.

 

 

Two trailers to the movie:

 

Trailer 1

 

Extended Trailer