First there are the blogs. Big-ticket bloggers like Wonkette, DailyKos, and Little Green Footballs have replaced newspapers and magazines as the sounding board for public opinion. Many web users will probably acquire their news from the web than from the TV. Television news can be slow and repetitive; the few companies controlling the network station can lead to a homogenized environment where everyone virtually says exactly the same thing.
But a soldier can blog directly from a war zone and report some progress when it takes place, with no government control to clean it up. Readers at home see it minutes later, and instantly discuss it on their blogs and message boards. Social news reports the story to the masses. People ask each other what the candidates are going to do in regards to the war, then visitors search the web for the history of this candidate or that and post a link for the reference. Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that's free to edit, updates the relevant articles with the new event.
All of this has happened in an hour, while the television camera crew is still on their way to the scene. By the time it shows up on television, it is literally cold coffee already.
People are also campaigning and debating online. the Presidential candidates may have time for nothing but a few minutes of raising their hands in response to questions, like a game of Simon says. But ten thousand voters are having a hundred times the debate right on their websites and chat rooms. There, points are raised, argued, sustained or debunked, all without a hierarchical media professional moderating the discussion.
The candidates are showing a greater awareness of the web audience this election than ever before. They all have websites. Most of them have blogs. Certainly all of them have message boards, where supporters gather to discuss campaign strategy, cheer on their candidate, and keep their candidate informed of developments along the campaign trail. Candidates are paying more attention this year to online polls and surveys, and they speak directly to the Internet audience.
YouTube is figuring prominently. This is a site where anyone can upload video clips for everyone on the web to see. Practically any Senator who says anything near someone with a camera phone ends up on YouTube within minutes. Donations are also coming in through Internet payment services, such as PayPal. People are even registering to vote online.
The opening up of the information age has brought the side effect that campaigns can be broken in minutes. It's as basic as this: you cannot get away with just one lie when you are on the Internet and are already a public figure. The truth always outs, because 500 armchair detectives are scrutinizing every single word. Voting records are located and posted, video clips of what definitely happened are there to be viewed. The Internet may yet end up being the new "paparazzi", since it is everywhere, and quick.
One of several risky issues that has already come up is the fact that Internet can be used for abuse as easily as it can be used for the truth. Spammers, social news riggers, and web-based strikes have already been used, and the one thing the Internet doesn't show is who is behind all of it, since the Internet brings with it anonymity. Maybe that gaffe was the action of your candidate's campaign team, or even it was somebody from the other staff trying to make your candidate appear bad. It is easier now to blow the whistle anonymously than it ever was before, but now when you see it, you need to determine that it is true, and what are the real motives behind it.
For good or bad, the Internet has let the genie of the crowd-sourced media out of the bottle, and it's not going back.
Learn More About the United States Government Here!
No comments:
Post a Comment