The Internet and the Changing Society

I recently finished reading Clay Shirky’s, Here Comes Everybody, and I would like to begin by saying, I am not a journalist. Yes I am sharing information which is published on the internet. Yes, this is a blog. But no, I do not consider myself a journalist. Shirky addresses the way the internet has changed the perception and perhaps rules of journalism, and a number of other interesting topics in his book which discusses the way technology, specifically the internet, is helping to reshape the global society.   

You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s old

I was born in the late ‘80s, grew up with the Web, and can hardly remember a time when e-mail wasn’t a main fixture of my communication. Shirky comes back to the point several times throughout his book that, after a technological innovation ceases to be an innovation, but rather, just a fixture of everyday life, it is at this point that the technology becomes interesting for society, and the effects of this technology on society can begin to be studied. As programs continue to be created on the internet, human connections continue to evolve (a phenomenon which will be discussed next), but as Shirky points out, and this is, I think, an important realization on the reach of the internet, “social tools don’t create collective action—they merely remove the obstacles to it.” An interesting current example of this has to do with the Arab Spring. Many people credited online tools such as Facebook and Twitter for causing the revolutions which are sweeping the Arab world. This observation however, according to Shirky’s view, and a view that I agree with, is incorrect. Facebook and Twitter gave members of the demonstration an easy outlet to tell a lot of people about their demonstrations, but the people of those nations would have been restless, and the demonstrations (likely) would have occurred regardless of those tools.

We may be sitting alone behind a computer screen, but boy are we social

To be fair, this is semi-exaggerated. As Shirky points out, the internet as communication has not become a substitute for being somewhere physically (a point which was not always known, but came to be realized from the above point that, with time, effects can be observed). Having said this, the internet has given individuals more opportunities to group together. Shirky discusses how the cost of finding like-minded people has decreased, so the online participation of groups has thus increased. This can be observed through political campaigns and the use of Facebook. For instance, it is much easier for me to go Facebook and click a ‘Like’ button, showing my support for candidate X than it is for me to go to the campaign headquarters and get a button that shows my support. Though ‘liking’ candidate X is a minimal move, it can be a stepping stone. So you’ve liked their page, you’ve made it public to the world, or at least the members of your networks, that you have support for this candidate. Now you might be more likely to go to Ms. X’s campaign site which you noticed on the Facebook page. Here, you will likely have the opportunity give your email address. Once you do that, you might be asked to volunteer. Once this happens, you may feel so invested that you choose to give a small donation. The level of involvement grows. This will not happen for everyone who “Likes’ the page, but people are social beings, and given the opportunity to join a group, such as on Facebook, the cost is so low that they will be more inclined to do this small step.

Just call me one in a mass of amateurs

This point relates to the above in how people now have a platform to not only meet at a low cost, but to present information at a low cost as well. As Shirky notes, “reproduction, distribution, categorization” are now extremely easy with blogs. Shirky calls this phenomenon “mass amateurism” where individuals who are not professional journalists by conventional means, act as journalists reporting on an array of different topics. The difference, as Shirky points out, is filtering. Whereas editors pick and choose what articles end up in the newspaper, with blogging, the writers are also the editors. Each case seems to be a double-edged sword. When it is only the editor choosing what goes into the paper, that places an awful lot of responsibility in the hands of a single person, and should that person choose to leave out certain stories, the effects of the public not having that information could be, well I wouldn’t say catastrophic, but it could have serious implications for some. On the other hand there are editors for a reason- someone to hold writers accountable (hopefully) and check the quality of the work. With blogging there is not this filtering process, so anything can be “reported.” This can be good in that bloggers can bring to light important information that reporters and editors my miss. It can also be dangerous because really anyone can make a blog and this has the potential for a lot of misinformation and a lot of disinformation. As Shirky points out though, we have already come too far. It is too late to ask the question if this is reasonable or not.     

Pawlenty Taking Some Tips, Tag-Lines, and Tactics from Obama in ‘08

So how do you tell America you’re running for President? Well apparently these days the answer is through an online video. Former Minnesota Governor, Tim Pawlenty was set to announce his candidacy for President in Iowa on Monday, May 23, 2011. Instead, on Sunday, May 22, 2011, Pawlenty released a web- video making this statement. Followers of Pawlenty on Twitter and Facebook, or those who may have gone to his website were able to view the 2 ¼ minute video, which explained that the next day in Iowa, he would really begin to kick off the campaign. This is not unlike Pawlenty who, about two months ago, announced that he was forming an exploratory committee via Facebook video.   

Now, for the first four months of this year, I dedicated much of my time to writing my Thesis on the use of hope as an emotional appeal in political campaigns. I conducted an historical analysis of four focal campaigns, John F. Kennedy’s in ‘60, Ronald Reagan’s in ‘80, Bill Clinton’s in ‘92, and Barack Obama’s ’08, as well as the campaigns of the candidate who won the presidency in the election years immediately prior to and following the fore mentioned campaigns. In addition to researching the context (economic state and involvement in foreign crises) of the country during those election years, I also analyzed dozens and dozens of campaign advertisements and speeches.

Now, I can go on and on on this topic, but the point that I’m trying to make here, is that I have studied a lot (and I mean a lot) of Obama’s advertisements from 2008, and there is no question that Obama based his campaign on the idea of hope. The advertisements and statements the President has made in regards to the 2012 campaign all point to him re-focusing on this idea. The web-video that Pawlenty released Sunday, seems to show that he too will be running on hope.

The video begins with an image of a search engine, with the words “how to tell America you’re running for president.” Melodic music (typical of hope-based advertisements) plays in the background as Pawlenty explains that he could get up behind a podium and make this announcement, but that wouldn’t be making any tough decisions, and instead he wanted to be straight forward in saying how much trouble the country is in. (How he thinks making a web-video shows that he can make “tough decisions” is beyond me, and a topic for another blog, but I digress). Pawlenty goes on to explain how he is a product of the American Dream, a tactic used by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama when they were initially running for President. Theses statements are voiced over a backdrop of scenes that evoke hope- the flag waving in the wind, crowds of people cheering, a sun rising over a field, people going to work, as well as images of children, signifying the future. The advertisement ends with Pawlenty saying, “We’ll change our country, and this time, it will be for the better.” Here, Pawlenty brings back a word and a subsequent theme of Obama’s campaign in the 2008 election, change. In this case, Pawlenty is clearly making a jab at Obama, implying that the changes which have come during his presidency have not been good, and it seems as though Pawlenty is trying to recycle the idea for this campaign.

In the 2008 election, Obama seemed to have won the online battle against McCain. In the 2012 election cycle, there is no doubt that the internet is going to play an increasingly important role in reaching the public. It seems that Tim Pawlenty is taking every chance he can to tweet and update his way onto the screens of the American electorate. Pawlenty appears to be building off of many of the strengths Obama utilized in the 2008 election, but will Pawlenty have the ability to beat the President at his own game? The odds seem against him at this point, but as a political science professor I had in undergrad used to always say, “Anything can happen in politics.”

Elections and Resignations: The Effects of Nanotargeting

In the past decade, the use of the internet for political campaigns has evolved and become more sophisticated. What started with a basic website with an allotment of possibly a mere 1 percent of a campaign’s funding has turned into full-fledged online campaigns utilizing not only websites, but social networking and social media sites, and online advertisements. With every institution looking to go the furthest with their funding, it is important for campaigns, too, to be able to gauge how effective these online campaigns are, if effective at all.

In his article The Digital Playbook: Can online ads move poll numbers, Peter Greenberger explains a study proving that online advertisements have the ability to increase awareness and action for a campaign. The study showed that for this particular campaign had an increase of donations from 42 percent 50 percent and individuals seemed to have a strong recall of the ads. These findings showed better results than a PSA campaign which was also studied and had no measurable effect on awareness to advertisement recall.

A benefit to online advertising, as Josh Koster outlines, seems to be the advertisers’ ability to use long-tail nanotargeting. Long-tail nanotargeting means targeting an extremely fractured segment of the audience with ads that are highly targeted towards that type of person. For instance, it is easy to find basic demographic information about an individual online, but with this, keywords are also targeted. If a person does a search for say, healthcare, certain ads will be triggered that concern healthcare matters. Koster notes that Google and Facebook “represent the pinnacle of targeting technology” because so much information can be garnered through individuals’ searches and profile information. Koster explains how Al Franken’s Senate race proved the advantages of targeting niche markets in order to get his message across.

In another article co-written by Koster, he and Tyler Davis explain how nanotargeting assisted in pressuring Lou Dobbs to resign from CNN. This case showed how a group targeted CNN employees through Facebook advertising, pressuring them to stand up against Lou Dobbs whose coverage of the immigration debate was often controversial. This case showed how even with a small budget, a strategic campaign, targeted toward the right people and utilizing the right resources can make a huge impact.

As nanotargeting and online advertising progress, as is sure to happen with more and more campaigns catching on to the techniques, it will be interesting to see how campaigns take this process to the next level and personalize messages to stand out even further.

Trump's Twitter Tells it All

Earlier this week, Donald Trump made the announcement we all, or at least most of us knew he would: he announced that he was not going to run for President. It seemed clear to many that the real-estate mogul turned television star entered the race to enhance his fame, not because he had any real interest in becoming the next president of the United States. As Trump noted, business is the industry he loves, and that is what he wants to focus on.

I was looking through the potential Republican candidates’ Twitter feeds comparing content, and even from that it was clear that Trump was just not serious about the job. While, on May 13 Tim Pawlenty tweeted about his view on Medicare and Social Security, Trump was tweeting about a sneak peek of Celebrity Apprentice and the mattresses in his hotel. On May 2, Mitt Romney tweeted about freedom and justice, while Trump tweeted about his Golf show. And the trend continues in this way…

Sure, like most politicians Trump proves to be a good self-promoter. A lot of people, and a lot of rich people, are good at promoting themselves, but that does not make them fit to be president. Just from looking at Trump’s Twitter posts from the last three weeks I wonder how anyone could believe that he was a viable candidate for President, or, for that matter, that he even had any interest in being President.

It is clear even from these tweets where Trump’s priorities and focus lie. On May 16, when he finally made the announcement that he would not run, Trump tweeted “This has been a very difficult decision regarding the Presidential run and I want to thank all my twitter fans for your fantastic support.” The next day, he had moved on from his potential presidential bid. And where did his focus shift? “Vote for the next Miss USA…”

Online Politics 101 Should Take a Lesson from Editing Tips 101

As a graduate student in communication who just finished writing my thesis on political campaigns, I have read dozens upon dozens of articles, both scholarly and not, written on political communications. Recently I read Colin Delany’s Online Politics 101 article from ePolitics. In the article, Delany went into great depth explaining the different (possible) components of an online campaign. While I would give Delany an ‘A’ for the breadth and depth of this piece, the quality of writing was inconsistent and at times incoherent.

As I say, Delany does a good job of explaining why the internet is a useful tool, describing how easy it is, how it can disseminate information quickly and to all corners of the world, and the benefits of the interconnectivity of the internet. He details rules to be followed for online politics in order to maximize the benefits of the internet. Delany then explains nearly every mode, or at least every mode that I’m aware of, for getting a message out to the public online. From tips to creating effective websites, to email lists, to social networking tools, and more, Delany provides an in-depth outline on how to use each of these tactics effectively.

While his content was informative and showed his vast knowledge on the topic, his editing could use some work. As I was reading, I stumbled upon this sentence “How much is does online politics have in common…” How much is does? I took it to be a slight error and continued reading. “Is does” was followed by “Your readers don’t want clever- the want to find what they’re looking for”, and “if readers can’t see how old it is, the can’t know IF…”, and “…a person’s propensity to give money to a campaigh…”, and “…how does a search engine finds your site…” As I’m re-writing these sentences, I notice little green and red squiggly lines under certain words. Shouldn’t “the” be “they”? Why, yes it should. Did you mean “campaign” rather than “campaigh”? Well, as a matter of fact, he did. As someone with such a profound knowledge of computers, I hope that Delany would know these elementary word processing editing tools as well. Delany referred to credibility several times through his 65 page article, and, for me, I find credibility to drop as spelling errors increase.

In contrast to Delany’s lengthy article, Dr. Alan Rosenblatt’s four articles on ­­­The Dimensions of a Digitally Networked Campaign were brief and focused, while being professional and well written. His articles clearly indicate and detail the 1-, 2-, and 3-Dimensions of digitally networked campaigning, describing their level of measurement, the direction of communication, the activity, and the amount of message control for each. 

I happened to appreciate both the straight-to-the-point writing of Rosenblatt as well as the colloquial jargon used by Delany. I found Delany’s article entertaining (and informative) to read. Having said this, I thought about how, when sifting through articles on the internet, trying to broaden my knowledge on a topic, I tend to discredit those where I am distracted from the content by keeping tallies of the spelling errors. In the age of Facebook and Twitter, of LOL and J, I have noticed a growing trend, and Delany’s article brings this to light but is by no means an extreme, of unedited and sometimes less than professional work on the internet. If one wishes to be taken seriously then write in whatever style or dialect you choose, just please pay attention to those green and red squiggles.