News: USA Today has an excellent article today discussing the increased use of technology, including videos on YouTube, by the presidential candidates.
Excerpt about the controversial “Hilary 1984 negative ad”: Such “voter-generated content” will be the wild card in coming elections, says Andrew Rasiej of TechPresident, a blog launched in February to track the role of the Web in the 2008 race. “Hillary 1984 shows traditional political campaigns will lose complete control of the political process,” he says.
Excerpt about YouTube campaign videos: Wider adoption of high-speed Internet access and the 2005 launch of video-sharing site YouTube make online video a crucial tool. Nearly 50% of U.S. homes now have broadband access, about double the rate in 2004, says the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Romney, founder of venture-capital firm Bain Capital, broadcasts video across eight “channels” on his site’s Mitt TV. Clinton lays out positions on health care, national defense and energy in her “Hillcasts.”
Like TV ads, online videos give politicians a chance to talk face-to-face to voters, unfiltered by mainstream journalists, says Jon Krosnick, a political science professor at Stanford University in Silicon Valley.
Yet, video is a double-edged sword. Virginia Republican George Allen lost his Senate re-election bid last fall after an amateur video spread across the Internet showing him at a campaign stop using the term “macaca,” perceived as an ethnic slur. Allen denied that was his intent. But the video’s repeated viewings on YouTube helped spur his defeat by newcomer Jim Webb.
Candidates are responding to attack videos with their own videos, much as they countered attack e-mail when it emerged in the 2000 elections. Romney was accused in YouTube videos of “flip-flopping” on social issues, adopting more conservative stances on gay marriage and abortion. He responded with 66 videos on his own YouTube page outlining his views. “I was wrong on some issues back then,” he says in one video. “I think most of us learn with experience.”
Analysis: It’s too early to tell whether YouTube will greatly affect the presidential election in 2008. Given the candidates’ own extensive use of YouTube already, it probably will have at least some effect. The “Hillary Clinton 1984” ad may just be an opening salvo. I’m still not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing.
April 5, 2007 at 5:27 pm |
I think it is terrific. Transparency, history, context. We’ll eventually get it all when Presidential candidates have entire online histories, not just a few campaign oriented YouTube videos. Blogged more on this vision over at Nextblitz
April 10, 2007 at 11:55 pm |
> I’m still not sure whether that’s a good or bad thing.
It’s a good thing. Sure there will be silly videos like the Hillary one, but more importantly there will be new tools to assist the voters…
http://www.ExpertVoter.org
gary