As you can probably tell from my posts and research I’ve learned that the internet and the television have a strong correlation, contrary to what some theorists may say. Yes, there might be a slight impact from time spent watching television to time surfing the internet, but in actuality I have found that most people are using both types of media instead of just one at a time, or one or the other. If this is the case it explains as to why there is little fluctuation in some statistics.
Through out my researching and tracking the 2008 Presidential Campaigning I found myself having the television on trying to catch a glimpse of the news reporting on what the candidates were up to, while searching the internet looking for articles, and looking at their websites. By using both types of media it enables me to multitask and see how candidates use the internet and television together. The connection is that while I’m saying people use both mediums I myself have done the same reinforcing the relationship between the two.
However, although not everyone uses media in this style there still remains a connection between the two. People may say that the internet is taking away from television, but I disagree. What is actually happening is they are piggybacking of each other in order to survive. Even though people may not actually be watching as much television they still have it on in the background, or turn it on to watch their favorite shows, news, and weather. These things can be done online as well, but sometimes it’s nice to have something going in the background for noise I’ve found.
I may not be able to continue following this relationship and how candidates are using the two different types of media to promote themselves for President, due to the class ending. However, it would be interesting to see who wins the primary elections and if the internet had more of a reason as to why they one instead of television or vise versa. Maybe I’ll continue to research on my own just to see how things turn out.
But, if anything the one type of media that is becoming obsolete is the telephone, because of the internet. No one really talks on the phone anymore, people talk online, or text message each other to get in contact. Perhaps if I was to continue with blogging I’d research the relationship between person’s use of the internet and face-to-face communication. But, in the mean time I’ll stick to television the internet and campaigning.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Propaganda
My last blog focused on who is running for President and how they are getting their names out to the public, and whether it is on television, or the internet. I have found that during the campaigning thus far candidates who are receiving more television coverage are those who are better known, and announced their running early on. Yes, the campaigning process is still early, but those who began with a strong campaigning strategy may result in doing better in the primary elections. But, we’ll just have to wait and see who wins.
A concept I have been pondering is how candidates at times use propaganda to attack each other’s stances on issues, and possibly their entire campaign platform. Yet, thus far the campaigning has steered clear of trash talking each other. It may be due to the fact that there is plenty of time remaining to harass the candidates through television advertisements in the months ahead.
I realize there has been a video clip posted on the internet about Hillary Clinton saying she’s like big brother through using the Macintosh commercial 1984. The interesting part about the clip is that it’s said to be sponsored by Barack Obama. But, it has been announced that Barack Obama had nothing to do with the video mocking Hillary Clinton. In fact Barack Obama wants to keep his campaign away from attacking Hillary’s platform, or anyone’s at this point in the game. So why are people taking into their own hands the mockery of candidates instead of letting the candidates do it themselves?
One reason I can think of is that the internet is a fairly new form of media that allows participation from citizens. No type of media has ever allowed the public to play such a role in campaigning. Not only can the public create propaganda, but the internet allows for information to be posted by anyone that can impact candidates positively or negatively. I’m optimistic we will see as the campaigning process continues more citizens taking into their own hands the creation of advertisements that mock candidates such as the one that makes fun of Hillary Clinton on YouTube called, “Vote Different.”
A concept I have been pondering is how candidates at times use propaganda to attack each other’s stances on issues, and possibly their entire campaign platform. Yet, thus far the campaigning has steered clear of trash talking each other. It may be due to the fact that there is plenty of time remaining to harass the candidates through television advertisements in the months ahead.
I realize there has been a video clip posted on the internet about Hillary Clinton saying she’s like big brother through using the Macintosh commercial 1984. The interesting part about the clip is that it’s said to be sponsored by Barack Obama. But, it has been announced that Barack Obama had nothing to do with the video mocking Hillary Clinton. In fact Barack Obama wants to keep his campaign away from attacking Hillary’s platform, or anyone’s at this point in the game. So why are people taking into their own hands the mockery of candidates instead of letting the candidates do it themselves?
One reason I can think of is that the internet is a fairly new form of media that allows participation from citizens. No type of media has ever allowed the public to play such a role in campaigning. Not only can the public create propaganda, but the internet allows for information to be posted by anyone that can impact candidates positively or negatively. I’m optimistic we will see as the campaigning process continues more citizens taking into their own hands the creation of advertisements that mock candidates such as the one that makes fun of Hillary Clinton on YouTube called, “Vote Different.”
Television advertisements sponsored by candidates usually are more forward. They state what a candidate’s stance is on a particular issue and spin it into looking wrong. The sponsor of the commercial then states at the end support the other candidate. These types of attacks are more formal and reserved in a sense as opposed to advertisements produced by regular everyday citizens. Television also limits the amount of participation from people and the information candidates want the public to know about them. In a way it seems as though from a candidates point of view television might be a better choice of getting information out to the public, but the internet allows for more participation, either way it’s it seems to be a double edged sword.
But, radio can play an active role in propaganda as well. I've recently came across an article on ABCNews that discusses Barack Obama's calm collected reaction to a parody done about him called, "Barack the Magic Negro." As the campaigning goes on more candidates will be made fun of and even attacked by people such as WJR Radio who created the song. It's intersting to see how anyone can take it upon themselves to create a commercial, song, or video clip that attacks candidates.
Another website I found that pokes fun at the leading candidates such as Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, and Edwards has links to various photoshoped pictures that are negative and a few postive about the candidates that people have created. It shows how instead of candidates attacking eachother the common person is taking it into their own hands to be creative and get messages out to the public. Check out the site to view more pictures. http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/election2008/2008_Election_Jokes.htm
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Who is Running for President?
While researching online as to what candidates have been up to this week I came across on the Washington Post a webpage that lists all of the candidates for the 2008 election. For the first time I found a list of all of the potential candidates for President. I had an idea of some of the candidates, but I did not know that there were so many republican candidates running.
The webpage called, “The Presidential Field” shows the democratic and republican candidates in two columns. Each of which show a picture of them that links to somewhat of a biography page that discusses their education, experience, books written, and recent articles that the Washington Post has covered on them. It’s refreshing to find a website or a type of media that provides information as to who all of the candidates are at the time being and what their backgrounds are.
If I was not did not have to write this blog for class who knows if I would have came upon this site. For all I know I could have continued thinking that there were a select few who were running for President in both parties. Of course I realized there had to be other candidates running, I just wasn’t aware of how many. The reason as to why I believe this is a possibility is due to the television coverage of certain candidates. I’ve noticed while watching news coverage of the candidates that only certain ones are receiving publicity such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, and at times Al Gore, and John Edwards. But, the others I’ve yet to see a strong campaign strategy on television.
However, my own selection of what I’m looking at could have an impact as to why I’ve yet to see more republican and democrat candidates. Some may believe that polarization may play a role in this. I tend to watch CNN over Fox News, which may be why I have not seen more of the republican candidates. But, CNN has not covered all of the democrats either. On the internet when I am searching for news or updates I try not to lean one way or the other in political parties. Instead I use searches usually directed towards my blogging topic, which covers all political parties. There may be a slight biased in candidates I’ve analyzed, but perhaps the reason is because those candidates are in the media more often than others.
I think that having a site such as the Washington Post does is a define benefit for the candidates running for President. It allows the public to get to know them more personally and informs those who may not know much about the candidate’s history. Also the connection between television the internet and politics at times can help or hurt a candidate’s campaign. Those who are not receiving as much publicity as those who are from television networks may be lagging in polls. This just shows that the internet cannot be the only type of media that candidates use in campaigning, television is needed as well.
The webpage called, “The Presidential Field” shows the democratic and republican candidates in two columns. Each of which show a picture of them that links to somewhat of a biography page that discusses their education, experience, books written, and recent articles that the Washington Post has covered on them. It’s refreshing to find a website or a type of media that provides information as to who all of the candidates are at the time being and what their backgrounds are.
If I was not did not have to write this blog for class who knows if I would have came upon this site. For all I know I could have continued thinking that there were a select few who were running for President in both parties. Of course I realized there had to be other candidates running, I just wasn’t aware of how many. The reason as to why I believe this is a possibility is due to the television coverage of certain candidates. I’ve noticed while watching news coverage of the candidates that only certain ones are receiving publicity such as Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, and at times Al Gore, and John Edwards. But, the others I’ve yet to see a strong campaign strategy on television.
However, my own selection of what I’m looking at could have an impact as to why I’ve yet to see more republican and democrat candidates. Some may believe that polarization may play a role in this. I tend to watch CNN over Fox News, which may be why I have not seen more of the republican candidates. But, CNN has not covered all of the democrats either. On the internet when I am searching for news or updates I try not to lean one way or the other in political parties. Instead I use searches usually directed towards my blogging topic, which covers all political parties. There may be a slight biased in candidates I’ve analyzed, but perhaps the reason is because those candidates are in the media more often than others.
I think that having a site such as the Washington Post does is a define benefit for the candidates running for President. It allows the public to get to know them more personally and informs those who may not know much about the candidate’s history. Also the connection between television the internet and politics at times can help or hurt a candidate’s campaign. Those who are not receiving as much publicity as those who are from television networks may be lagging in polls. This just shows that the internet cannot be the only type of media that candidates use in campaigning, television is needed as well.
Publicity Can be Good or Bad
Previously I’ve discussed how television videos, advertisements, and news reports are being posted online, which allows others to access them at a later time. While watching CNN News this weekend I saw a short report about John McCain making a joke about bombing Iran and MoveOn.org turning it into a joke against him. The report didn’t give much information about the story, but it did give John McCain some publicity.
I later decided this might make an interesting blog post that is to see if the story went into more detail on the internet, which proved true. I went to www.cnn.com and searched for the report under politics. The title was “MoveOn ad targets McCain's 'Bomb Iran' joke.” The article was about John McCain showing how he was joking with his veteran friends about bombing Iran. But, others can twist it into showing how he is reckless and that the nation doesn’t need another president who will be careless about going to war in the future. The article also mentions at the end that John McCain’s comments are posted on YouTube and how many times they’ve been viewed. I believe that adding this information to the report increases the connection between the two technologies as well as allows for readers to access more information on the situation.
I find it interesting to see how a brief mention of the joke on television can lead to a longer story online. It’s true that television news broadcasters usually only give a few seconds or minutes of a story in order to keep people interested or just inform the public. Yet, having the ability to post the entire story online allows the people to quickly gain more information on the topic whenever they wish as I’ve just demonstrated.
Now that the internet has become a common media source in the United States it’s common that news stations have their own websites that post more information, and stories than are broadcasted on television. The sites have even become somewhat interactive by providing links to email or contact them in various ways as opposed to television where most of the time is one way communication. The point is though that television stations who have websites are posting more information, which allows the public to learn and interact more in things they’re interested in.
I later decided this might make an interesting blog post that is to see if the story went into more detail on the internet, which proved true. I went to www.cnn.com and searched for the report under politics. The title was “MoveOn ad targets McCain's 'Bomb Iran' joke.” The article was about John McCain showing how he was joking with his veteran friends about bombing Iran. But, others can twist it into showing how he is reckless and that the nation doesn’t need another president who will be careless about going to war in the future. The article also mentions at the end that John McCain’s comments are posted on YouTube and how many times they’ve been viewed. I believe that adding this information to the report increases the connection between the two technologies as well as allows for readers to access more information on the situation.
I find it interesting to see how a brief mention of the joke on television can lead to a longer story online. It’s true that television news broadcasters usually only give a few seconds or minutes of a story in order to keep people interested or just inform the public. Yet, having the ability to post the entire story online allows the people to quickly gain more information on the topic whenever they wish as I’ve just demonstrated.
Now that the internet has become a common media source in the United States it’s common that news stations have their own websites that post more information, and stories than are broadcasted on television. The sites have even become somewhat interactive by providing links to email or contact them in various ways as opposed to television where most of the time is one way communication. The point is though that television stations who have websites are posting more information, which allows the public to learn and interact more in things they’re interested in.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Television is it become Obsolete???
I realize that studies have been done and polls taken to find some sort of conclusion as to whether or not television is becoming obsolete, because of the internet. We’ve even read in class various authors such as Henry Jenkins whose developed theories that we’ve compared with our own opinions on how we use media sources and the effects they have on each other. By doing so it’s allowed me to gain a better understanding that the internet isn’t necessarily taking away from television, but giving it a different purpose.
People are watching less television, because they have busy schedules in addition to using new technologies like the internet that provide a greater amount of information. I know personally I don’t watch television unless it is a show I really enjoy, or if someone else has it on in the background while at college. But, otherwise when my life is less hectic I try to make relaxation time for watching the television programs. That doesn’t mean I’m spending more time online. Like I’ve stated in previous posts I do use the internet frequently to look up information, check email, or talk to friends, however usually its school related, or planning a face-to-face meeting. This shows the connection between the internet, and how people are using it to increase face-to-face communication as well as researching.
In an article I read called, “Americans spending more time watching TV, listening to radio, surfing Internet” I found that “Americans seem to be spending less time in quiet contemplation,” (OHLEMACHER 1). I agree with this observation not only because I see it in my own life, but since I find more and more of the people I know talking online to a person in another room while watching television. Perhaps multitasking the usage of these media sources shows that people still are using television in addition to the internet, which increases media consumption overall. However, the main observation is that people are using new forms of technology to communicate, access information, and that the relationship between the two sources is stronger than ever.
Television is still playing a strong role in media usage. In Henry Jenkins article, “Photoshop for Democracy,” discusses the purpose television is playing in presidential campaigns. He states that, “Candidates may build their base on the Internet but they need television to win elections,” (Jenkins 213). In the past it’s been true. Howard Dean’s campaign was strong on the internet through fundraising and reaching the public. But, he used all of the money, and resulted in lacking when it came to a strong television advertisement campaign, and reaching the undecided voters. Jenkins, has found that, “the internet reaches the hard core, television the undecided,” Howard Dean’s campaign proves exactly that (Jenkins 213). Since he didn't use television advertisments to the best of his extent the undecided vote probably hurt more than helped his campaign.
Overall my findings are leaning in the direction that the internet and television have a strong correlation when it comes to campaigning. I hope to understand further the reasons as to why, and perhaps what the outcome of the 2008 presidential election will have to do with the candidate’s usage of each type of media.
People are watching less television, because they have busy schedules in addition to using new technologies like the internet that provide a greater amount of information. I know personally I don’t watch television unless it is a show I really enjoy, or if someone else has it on in the background while at college. But, otherwise when my life is less hectic I try to make relaxation time for watching the television programs. That doesn’t mean I’m spending more time online. Like I’ve stated in previous posts I do use the internet frequently to look up information, check email, or talk to friends, however usually its school related, or planning a face-to-face meeting. This shows the connection between the internet, and how people are using it to increase face-to-face communication as well as researching.
In an article I read called, “Americans spending more time watching TV, listening to radio, surfing Internet” I found that “Americans seem to be spending less time in quiet contemplation,” (OHLEMACHER 1). I agree with this observation not only because I see it in my own life, but since I find more and more of the people I know talking online to a person in another room while watching television. Perhaps multitasking the usage of these media sources shows that people still are using television in addition to the internet, which increases media consumption overall. However, the main observation is that people are using new forms of technology to communicate, access information, and that the relationship between the two sources is stronger than ever.
Television is still playing a strong role in media usage. In Henry Jenkins article, “Photoshop for Democracy,” discusses the purpose television is playing in presidential campaigns. He states that, “Candidates may build their base on the Internet but they need television to win elections,” (Jenkins 213). In the past it’s been true. Howard Dean’s campaign was strong on the internet through fundraising and reaching the public. But, he used all of the money, and resulted in lacking when it came to a strong television advertisement campaign, and reaching the undecided voters. Jenkins, has found that, “the internet reaches the hard core, television the undecided,” Howard Dean’s campaign proves exactly that (Jenkins 213). Since he didn't use television advertisments to the best of his extent the undecided vote probably hurt more than helped his campaign.
Overall my findings are leaning in the direction that the internet and television have a strong correlation when it comes to campaigning. I hope to understand further the reasons as to why, and perhaps what the outcome of the 2008 presidential election will have to do with the candidate’s usage of each type of media.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Taking Advantage of Resources
Television for years has been the main media source that has informed the public. But, that has changed since the internet has caught the public’s eye. The relationship between the two types of media has become extremely strong resulting in them relying upon each other to coexist. It’s claimed that television has seen its day in campaign advertising in the 2006 election (Patterson 1). But, I’m not so convinced it's true, due to my findings.
I’ve found that news stations pick up on what is happening online with campaigning as well as how and what the candidates are doing to reach the United States citizens. Stations follow the candidates across country watching their every move what they say, how they present themselves, and who they are trying to reach, or persuade they are the best candidate for President. While news broadcasters report on their findings they not only show the reports on television, but on their websites. By doing so many people instead of watching the news on television read the reports online. I’ve found that personally I tend to read online news more, because it is available when I have time to read it and catch up.
The point is that candidates are taking advantage of the publicity that news stations provide in addition to creating websites and buying time for television advertisements. Candidates are using all their resources early on to get their name out to the public and what they stand for. But, candidates are realizing that the public stray a way from watching television advertisements and the internet is a cheaper way of informing people. The result is that candidates are buying more advertisement time for television, which increases the chances of people watching them (Patterson 1).
I’m not sure if I agree with what this is proposing. On the one hand yes there is a greater chance that the public will see a campaign advertisement, but on the other people still don’t want to watch them and may change the station. I suppose it depends on who the advertisements are targeting. The older voters may be persuaded to gather their information on candidates through television and other media sources than the internet, which younger voters may. Television will remain an important media source, because of the competition, the strong linked relationship of the internet, and how it doesn’t reach everyone at this time.
I’ve found that news stations pick up on what is happening online with campaigning as well as how and what the candidates are doing to reach the United States citizens. Stations follow the candidates across country watching their every move what they say, how they present themselves, and who they are trying to reach, or persuade they are the best candidate for President. While news broadcasters report on their findings they not only show the reports on television, but on their websites. By doing so many people instead of watching the news on television read the reports online. I’ve found that personally I tend to read online news more, because it is available when I have time to read it and catch up.
The point is that candidates are taking advantage of the publicity that news stations provide in addition to creating websites and buying time for television advertisements. Candidates are using all their resources early on to get their name out to the public and what they stand for. But, candidates are realizing that the public stray a way from watching television advertisements and the internet is a cheaper way of informing people. The result is that candidates are buying more advertisement time for television, which increases the chances of people watching them (Patterson 1).
I’m not sure if I agree with what this is proposing. On the one hand yes there is a greater chance that the public will see a campaign advertisement, but on the other people still don’t want to watch them and may change the station. I suppose it depends on who the advertisements are targeting. The older voters may be persuaded to gather their information on candidates through television and other media sources than the internet, which younger voters may. Television will remain an important media source, because of the competition, the strong linked relationship of the internet, and how it doesn’t reach everyone at this time.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Internet Fundraising has it Reached its Potential???
Although the internet played an important role in the 2000 and 2004 election it’s playing a more prominent role already in the 2008 presidential campaigning. An article by E. J. Dionne Jr. was published in the Washington Post, titled “A Wide-Open Web for the '08 Campaign.” The article evaluates the way in which candidates have taken advantage of internet campaigning in the past and present as opposed to television in the past, and how fundraising on the internet has become easier than ever.
It is said that in 2000 candidates raised a total of $6 to $7 million online, and in 2004 the record was $82 million in online donations (Dionne 1). Donations to candidates should now more than ever set new records. But, now that the internet isn’t as new of source of media, "It's hard to have a Dean-like phenomenon ever again," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network, a progressive advocacy group, "because the Internet is not a shiny new toy anymore," (Dionne 1). Howard Dean, used the internet early on to reach the public, and get citizens involved in his campaign.
The candidates for the 2008 Presidential election are trying to reach voters early on even though the internet is not a new type of media anymore. But, people are still getting involved through donating, checking out campaign websites, and attending rallies. People who are researching websites could possibly be ones who are associated with the individual parties, or those who know which candidate they intend to vote for. Some people just want to find out more information on the issues involved in this campaign.
Through campaigning online it permits candidates to not only reach the public faster on a more personal level, but it also allows for citizens to get involved directly. This article questions if Barack Obama will reach new levels of campaign fundraising online and will it make a difference or not to Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton already has money. But, is that going to affect her campaign finance? I can’t really answer that question, but news polls have said that she as in the lead for fundraising recently. Perhaps it will not affect her campaign strategies. However, we can see how Barack Obama is taking advantage of the internet to not only reach people, and take their money, but get them involved in the campaign itself. His website shows the goals he has set for donations, involvement, and that they have been reached. It also provides ways to get involved to campaign locally, and through the website. In my opinion the internet is still playing a significant role in campaigning, and will allow all candidates to set new records for fundraising online as well as getting involved in the campaigns.
It is said that in 2000 candidates raised a total of $6 to $7 million online, and in 2004 the record was $82 million in online donations (Dionne 1). Donations to candidates should now more than ever set new records. But, now that the internet isn’t as new of source of media, "It's hard to have a Dean-like phenomenon ever again," said Simon Rosenberg, president of NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network, a progressive advocacy group, "because the Internet is not a shiny new toy anymore," (Dionne 1). Howard Dean, used the internet early on to reach the public, and get citizens involved in his campaign.
The candidates for the 2008 Presidential election are trying to reach voters early on even though the internet is not a new type of media anymore. But, people are still getting involved through donating, checking out campaign websites, and attending rallies. People who are researching websites could possibly be ones who are associated with the individual parties, or those who know which candidate they intend to vote for. Some people just want to find out more information on the issues involved in this campaign.
Through campaigning online it permits candidates to not only reach the public faster on a more personal level, but it also allows for citizens to get involved directly. This article questions if Barack Obama will reach new levels of campaign fundraising online and will it make a difference or not to Hillary Clinton’s campaign finance. Everyone knows Hillary Clinton already has money. But, is that going to affect her campaign finance? I can’t really answer that question, but news polls have said that she as in the lead for fundraising recently. Perhaps it will not affect her campaign strategies. However, we can see how Barack Obama is taking advantage of the internet to not only reach people, and take their money, but get them involved in the campaign itself. His website shows the goals he has set for donations, involvement, and that they have been reached. It also provides ways to get involved to campaign locally, and through the website. In my opinion the internet is still playing a significant role in campaigning, and will allow all candidates to set new records for fundraising online as well as getting involved in the campaigns.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Broadcasts & the Internet
The relationship between television and the internet can be understood by analyzing how each are used in everyday life. Looking at how Presidential campaigning for 2008 uses both sources of media shows how they've become even more dependent upon each other. Television for years has been a main source of communication that has reached the public. But, the fact is that the internet is now a major part of people’s everyday lives in addition to the television.
The internet is playing a crucial role in campaigning that has never been seen before. Presidential candidates have created their own websites enabling the public to view information that in the past would not have been accessible. Part of the reason is, because of propaganda, and making the other candidates look bad, in order to get ahead. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are two of the Democratic candidates for President who created websites that encourage participation in politics. Through analyzing each of the sites I’ve found that they are fairly similar in their approaches to informing the public. The websites can be found at http://www.barackobama.com/, and http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.
Barack Obama was one of the first candidates to use a television broadcast as a means of communication with the public posted on the internet. This may seem confusing, but the fact is that ever since technology has advanced people are now able to post videos or shows on the internet one of the major websites that allows people to post shows is http://www.youtube.com/. Barack Obama throughout his campaign has been posting on his website several clips that were first taped or aired on television networks. Several of them are of his visits to other states where he speaks to the public about his stance on governmental issues and preaches to citizens why he would make a great President. He also announced his running for the Presidency in a broadcast posted on the internet that was him sitting alone, relaxed talking directly to United States citizens. This enabled Obama to show his interest in reaching the public and talking to them one on one. I shows that he's interested in what people have to say in addition to showing he's like every other person, an average American.
Hillary Clinton on her campaign website posts many of the same sorts of videos as Barack Obama. Her video posts are often of her discussing her stance on various issues such as equal pay, energy, and health care as well as her speaking to the United States citizens as she goes on the campaigning trail. Clinton made her announcement that she was running for President online as well. It was then later picked up by bloggers and television networks to show on television. Clinton’s video was similar to Obama’s where she had a one on one conversation with the public. It created a more personal setting and again showed that she was interested in reaching out to show the public she cares about what they want.
The internet is playing a crucial role in campaigning that has never been seen before. Presidential candidates have created their own websites enabling the public to view information that in the past would not have been accessible. Part of the reason is, because of propaganda, and making the other candidates look bad, in order to get ahead. Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton are two of the Democratic candidates for President who created websites that encourage participation in politics. Through analyzing each of the sites I’ve found that they are fairly similar in their approaches to informing the public. The websites can be found at http://www.barackobama.com/, and http://www.hillaryclinton.com/.
Barack Obama was one of the first candidates to use a television broadcast as a means of communication with the public posted on the internet. This may seem confusing, but the fact is that ever since technology has advanced people are now able to post videos or shows on the internet one of the major websites that allows people to post shows is http://www.youtube.com/. Barack Obama throughout his campaign has been posting on his website several clips that were first taped or aired on television networks. Several of them are of his visits to other states where he speaks to the public about his stance on governmental issues and preaches to citizens why he would make a great President. He also announced his running for the Presidency in a broadcast posted on the internet that was him sitting alone, relaxed talking directly to United States citizens. This enabled Obama to show his interest in reaching the public and talking to them one on one. I shows that he's interested in what people have to say in addition to showing he's like every other person, an average American.
Hillary Clinton on her campaign website posts many of the same sorts of videos as Barack Obama. Her video posts are often of her discussing her stance on various issues such as equal pay, energy, and health care as well as her speaking to the United States citizens as she goes on the campaigning trail. Clinton made her announcement that she was running for President online as well. It was then later picked up by bloggers and television networks to show on television. Clinton’s video was similar to Obama’s where she had a one on one conversation with the public. It created a more personal setting and again showed that she was interested in reaching out to show the public she cares about what they want.
The question is that if television networks and bloggers wouldn’t have picked up on each of the candidates’ announcements, would the public have been made aware? In my opinion I believe that the announcements would have been found, but by politicians themselves or people who are educated that are interested in politics, and normally seek out that sort of information. I found it especially interesting that both democrat candidates released that they were running in the same way and at the same time. I will continue to search in my future posts for answers, and try to come to a conclusion about how this relationship between television and the internet is connected with campaigning.
Rudy Giuliani, a republican candidate also has created a website that encourages participation in the campaign. On the site it has a get involved section as well as the others do. However, it seems a little different than the democrats. It has a join the cause, call talk radio, tell your friends, Rudy on your blog, raise money, and volunteer as sections citizens can use to participate. Some of the sections are similar, but I find the site as less stimulating than other campaign sites. It does not have facebook or myspace like the others and I believe having those shows the candidate is making an effort to reach the younger generation of voters as well as the overall public. It helps show that the candidate is an ordinary person like everyone else. Rudy, as his site calls him, also has video clips as do the other candidates. They are under the news pull down menu, and are mostly of him attending interviews, campaign rallies, and the President announcing him to speak. The candidate does not have an announcement video like the two democratic candidates mentioned above, yet he has him at baseball games. I'm not sure why the republicans don't want to reach the public on a more personal level, or if they are trying to in a different way like attending baseball games. But, it is important that a presidential candidate takes advantage of all resources available that help him/her reach the public on whatever level that may be. Perhaps we'll see candidates across the board using both types of media in reach all ages in various ways.
Rudy's campaign website can be found at: http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php
Friday, March 9, 2007
What it's all about
My final blogging project will be analyzing the relationship between the Internet and television. Through following the campaigning for the 2008 Presidential candidates it will enable me to see if and how each type of media relies on the other. Not only will I be picking apart other's views, but comparing and contrasting whether or not information is posted on television or the Internet first, and if it's the same information. I'm hoping to gain from this project a better understanding of what exactly the relationship between the Internet and television is and to help others gain a better understanding as well. So keep checking in to see what I find out about this media technology relationship.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)