November 27, 2007
Are new media changing political campaigns?
Politicians used to knock on doors to reach voters. But in today’s presidential races, candidates are more likely to ring cell phones, send e-mails or text messages, try to lure visitors to Web sites, and even post videos on YouTube.
Campaigning in the new media era was the topic of a recent American Forum broadcast on AU’s WAMU (88.5 FM), “From Grassroots to Netroots: The Impact of the Internet and Other Media Technologies in Campaign ’08.”
Politicians today live in the constant glare of the camera, not only from traditional networks, but from video cameras trained on them at all moments by people ready to put any gaffe on YouTube.
The virtual scrutiny is virtually 24-7. The panelists disagreed on whether this interjects more honesty into the political process or makes politicians even more scripted because of the constant need to stay on message and watch their step.
The ability for ordinary people to take a clip, put it on YouTube, and impact the debate makes the system freer and more honest, said MoveOn.org campaign director Adam Green.
But another panelist said it was more likely to drive spontaneity out. “I don’t know if idiots are being driven out of office, but they are certainly on notice not to show their idiocy. I’m not sure that’s good,” said Jeanne Cummings, a former White House correspondent for the Wall Street Journal who now covers money and lobbying for Politico.
Green described the Internet as “tearing down the traditional power structure.” It favors the left, he said, because it empowers people to talk to each other, which is a culture the Republicans don’t embrace.
That was a view not shared by Dotty Lunch, a longtime CBS political editor and executive in residence at AU’s School of Communication (SOC). She pointed out that it was partly the Republican embrace of new media that made such an impact in the grassroots fight against this year’s proposed changes to immigration laws and, earlier, against Bush’s nomination of Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court. So both sides are using the Web effectively, though not in all areas.
Republicans are seeking “viral interest” with campaigns geared at party loyalists, such as the push for a “Clinton Library Card,” presented as a petition drive to open the Clinton Library and its papers, noted Cyrus Kohn, director of the Republican National Committee’s digital media efforts.
The Internet may end up increasing partisan politics because it lends itself to the “pure politics” of highly charged debate, speculated Josh McConaha, Internet director for the Democratic National Committee. But the jury is still out. Moderator Jane Hall, an SOC professor and media commentator, noted that some research says people may be more likely to consider other views in the privacy of their Internet screens.
The Internet is certainly effective as a fund-raising tool, Cumming said. Barack Obama is far ahead of the pack in his ability to use the Net for fund raising, panelists said. One of his strategies is to focus not just on big donors, but on grassroots donors and “baby bundlers,” people who can gather donations from friends of around $20 a piece, in contrast to the more traditional wealthy “bundlers” who generate huge sums from well-heeled friends.
Obama has raised a massive $16.4 million over the Web, in comparison to the $5 million raised online by Edwards, $4 million by Clinton, and $3 million by Romney. Twenty-nine percent of Obama’s record-breaking $57 million in campaign funds came from small donors, Cummings said, “and that’s the amount that he beat Hilary (in donations). So it’s not chump change.”
The American Forum series is sponsored by SOC. Since 1986, it has been a regular platform for influential journalists, public policy makers, and other influential voices to discuss and debate issues on the news.
