The New Media, or the Internet, undoubtedly plays a huge role in our lives today. With that being said, the 2008 Presidential Election is no exception to the smorgasbord of information that has been coming our way. Throughout the years, television has been taking the heat on the impact that it has on Americans, particularly focusing on TV and politics. But now, the Internet might possibly be playing an even more pivotal role in this election. As we discussed in last week’s class and heard from the group who presented, advertising, whether it is on the television or the Internet, quite possibly influences Americans in one way or another, whether it be positive or negative. As John Tedesco says in Lynda Lee Kaid’s The Handbook of Political Communication Research, “The Internet quickly transformed the way individuals, organizations, political institutions, and governments communicate and negotiate political information and political roles” (507).
In the article “Record Percentage of Americans Use Internet For Politics, Survey Finds” by Sarah Lai Stirland, it says that at least 46% of all Americans have used the Internet, email, or text messages in some way during this political process. This survey was conducted by a non-partisan group called Pew Internet and American Life Project. The article further explains that the Internet is becoming part of the norm in political participation, from reading the news to people sharing their views. “In this season, just the twelfth year of presidential politics online, there is no disputing the fact that the internet has moved from the periphery to the center of national politics,” writes Aaron Smith, a research specialist and Lee Rainie, the Pew project's director in the new survey.
Bloggers have become quite popular in this election, as there is “The Caucus Blog” on NYTimes.com (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/?scp=1&sq=political%20blogs&st=cse) and the “Political Ticker” blog on CNN.com (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com), as well as citizen bloggers who are voicing their opinion and exercising their right of the First Amendment. It can be said, though, that people criticize blogs, due to a possible lack of credibility or authenticity from these citizen bloggers. Tedesco quotes Glass (1996) in saying that “the Internet offers far fewer clues to its users to help them discern the good from the ugly” (Kaid 522). In addition to blogs, there are so many websites out there that people can view about the ’08 Election. Youtube.com has an array of political videos that can be seen, as well as the presidential candidates own websites, supporter websites, third-party websites, ad campaign websites, etc.
Tedesco says that there are many political observers who are either “optimists or skeptics” when it comes to the Internet (Kaid 507). So where do you think you fall—generally, do you think that the Internet plays a more positive role when it comes to a voter’s political process; or do you think that voters need to be somewhat skeptical when it comes to the Internet? (i.e. blogs and their validity). Also, how have you used the Internet during this presidential election, and how much do you feel you rely on the Internet as compared to other mediums (TV, newspapers, talk radio, etc.)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Jill I think your post brought up a lot of important facts. I too had some of the same thoughts while reading the chapter. The internet has a HUGE effect on everyone that uses it, or comes in contact with it – so there is no wonder why the Campaigns of 2008 have turned their attention and effort toward it. I noticed that you quoted Kaid when he said “optimists are skeptics” ( Kaid 507). To elaborate on that, I thought it was really interesting ( and true ) when Kaid mentioned the age, and accomplishments of the internet. He stated, “Although only a decade young, considerable academic inquiry into the Internet’s political potential and limitation already exists,” ( Kaid 507) Which is ironic- because that is what we are doing now. Wrapping up working on the presentation I am doing for tomorrows class really opened my eyes to just how heavily politicians are relying on the internet and new technologies to reach out and familiarize others with their candidacy.
You mentioned blogs, which I have personally overlooked during the campaign thus far, and so have many other people I know. But, it takes just a few clicks of the mouse to read the candidates real thoughts, words, and reactions and updates. McCain’s blog can be found here : http://www.johnmccain.com/blog/. And Obama’s here http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog, where he offers the “voices for change” public forum. While blogs might not be the most official way to get your information – they certainly add an interactive approach to education oneself about candidates.
A quote from the reading that I find would help to define our research on the internet and campaigning said, “Given the status of communication in U.S political campaigns as presented above, it is no wonder that there was both hopeful expectation and explicit skepticism regarding the Internet’s potential as a vehicle for reinvigorating American democracy and increasing political participation.” ( Kaid 510) While only the polls will show an increase in political participation, skeptics and optimists alike can all agree on one thing, the internet has in fact reinvigorated American democracy and campaigning and it will be interesting to see how much farther it can go.
I think that the Internet does indeed play a positive role in keeping voters actively aware of what is happening in politics, but at the same time I think that voters also need to take some things on the internet with a grain of salt and be cautious. In general, the Internet has played an important role in keeping voters more informed, especially those in the younger generation. According to Kaid, "because young citizens are the largest group to report frequent access to the internet, young voters have indicated that they are more likely to use the Internet than typical media" (521).This group, especially college kids, usually do not have time to watch television for debates, candidate interviews, etc. They also do not have time or the resources to read the major newspapers in print. However, they are constantly on the internet, so why not put the information where they are most likely to get it? All of the major newstations have their own websites with political information and everything else that was broadcast on their show can be read or viewed on their website. The candidates also have their own websites. In this sense, the Internet plays a very positive role in keeping all generations informed. However, it can also play a negative role as well. According to Kaid, "Credibility of online information is at the source of much academic controversy and inquiry... verifying the validity of online information is very difficult to do without searching multiple sources for confirmation" (522). There are many blogs about the election, including this one. Some may be biased towards particular candidates or issues. Others may contain incorrect information. It is much the same as reading something from Wikipedia and using as an academic source: don't trust everything you read as fact. Those who don't realize this will become confused and ill informed and possibly make their decision for president based off of wrong information or assumptions. I personally have used the Internet for information about this election, though maybe not as much as the rest of my peers. I typically rely on television for my political information and issues, from the major networks to cable news. I have really only used the Internet to catch up on events that I have missed, such as an interview of the candidate by a newscaster or a candidate speech. Compared to other mediums, I don't rely on the Internet as much, although this is not from a belief that I will not find anything informative online. The medium that I usually rely on is television.
Like others have said here, the Internet is in my opinion one of the most if not the most influential medium in this election. The Internet is a place where any opinion or view can be found to either support how a person or candidate feels. On page 514 Kaid says, "Many researchers analyzed the possibilities inherent in the Web's ability to promote an all-inclusive public sphere and offer an electronic Athena". Since the Internet is basically a free-for-all, iI do think that it's true because anyone can post anything they want on the Internet. This is both good and bad, for many of the reasons that Jill said. In some ways, it's nice that people can find things on the Internet to appeal to their taste and likings. In other ways, however, it gives people a lot of liberty to say whatever they want, and that's where blogs come in.
Blogs are great, especially this one :), but all bloggers definitely aren't created equal. You don't have to have any qualification to have a blog, and there really is no regulation or fact checking when it comes to what bloggers say. I think it's great that the Internet provides an outlet for free speech, but people have to be aware that they can't believe everything they hear from the blogs. Hopefully, people are smart enough to realize this, but there are lots of people who, sadly, aren't Media Studies majors. Even blogs that seem "official" like those on CNN or NYTimes may be biased simply because of the nature of a blog: it's someone's personal opinion and take on a situation. There is a good chance that the facts will be accurate, but there's also an equal chance that they won't be completely straight. Personally, I rely on the Internet for a lot of my political info, but I know to take what I read with a grain of salt. It has to be our responsibility to weed through all the junk.
i personally fall in the "positive category". when it comes to political information i find the internet to be a superior and easier tool for me to utilize in my research.i think our handbook shows my beliefs perfectly when it states: "optimists argued that information in cyberspace would enable candidates, citizens, and political organizations to bypass the news organizations' current grip on the content, tone, and flow of the majority of political communication" (handbook 510),
i generally like the internet better for information because i can bypass more of the bias, cut through the chatter and analysis to get to the facts, and steer the tone towards what i want to know. while i know that the internet definitely has its bias's i can at least find the facts and read them from sheets rather then hear then from biased reporters.
it's especially useful to cut through the chatter and get to the information you want. i may not have time to sit and watch a TV stations political program and even if i do have the time the news channels give you the information they think you should hear, not the whole story.
so overall i think it has a positive influence so long as you know how to use it properly. but then again what in our society isn't that way? couldn't you hurt yourself with a fork if you didn't know how to use it properly? so long as people are responsible and know how to use the internet properly i believe it greatly benefits our society when it comes to political info
to answer the other question i plan to use the internet for my research. mainly for the reasons i listed above. i will rely on it heavily for my decision in the upcoming election.
I personally do not like using the internet for sources, not just with this 2008 election, but with other things as well. "Credibility of online information is at the source of much academic controversey and inquiry (Kaid, 55-Whillock, 1997). Things on the internet can be posted by anyone, anytime, anywhere, and with that being said, it is really hard to tell whether what you see or read is credible or not. "What delineates the Internet from traditional print and broadcast media, is that its communication network offers ordinary citizens unrestricted access and ability to voice their political agenda to a worldwide audience" (Kaid, 510). People write their own blogs, and create their own websites, and who knows what the facts are anymore. With sites such as wikipedia, people can even edit existing websites as they wish. As we saw last week in advertising, it's very common to edit videos and edit speeches to make them seem different.
According to the reading, I do believe that the internet does serve in positive ways. For example, candidates who aren't known at all can use the internet as a cheap escape to get their name out there, however Kaid also suggests that web sites often contain more positive information compared to the negativity on t.v.(Kaid 183). I'd like to agree to disagree on that one, with no one having restrictions on the internet, I would assume their would be more untrue theories. For example, the ridiculous youtube videos I showed in class would never been seen on tv. They were funny, but how credible would you think they were with James Bond music in the background? Or even 9/11 conspiracies, the videos are hours long and made to be so believable, and people actually believe the U.S. set it's own terrorist attack up...WOW.
The internet is fast, and easy , (for those who know how to use it of course), and people go their first to get whatever they want to know, compared to having to spend hours in a library researching. Life all around is easier in 2008. However, I personally believe the internet isn't the new, only way to get information. I believe people should research if they truly are passionate about making informed, educated decisions. The internet is moving in the direction of the tradtional media (517) but I just think people will start seeing things that aren't true. I am not comletely cynical of the internet, and of course I use it every single day to look things up, but I just wouldn't trust everything I saw. Of course, there are many many credible websites and credible online journalists out there, but I would never trust a blog or a video or any social media. I also tend to stick with traditional print papers that are online, such as the WallStreetJournal, instead of random news sites and things like that.
One of the more pertinent issues the text points out this week is the idea that while the Internet has seen a dramatic increase in overall access, this does not necessarily mean it is meeting it's full (and incredible) potential to further the democratic nature of this country. "Although technology will deliver more sophisticated tools to accomplish more advanced interactive goals, much existing interactive potential is unrealized" (Tedesco 524). Still, while research has indicated improvements in the online realm, concerns over the 'digital divide,' equal access, and online credibility continue to persist. Aside from all of that mess however, I'd like to say that I myself think the Internet is an exceptionally powerful tool in today's political process and as many have cited within the Handbook, has vast potential to do far more. The biggest issue here remains whether or not the majority of society can keep up with the technological capabilities, and seemingly most importantly, if the campaigns will truly allow their candidates to expose themselves and interact with the masses via the Web (it'll never happen).
The interactive nature of the online world provides a platform for digital communities to be formed - which in my eyes is a form of mobilization. Let's just call it 'e-mobilization.' While early research has questioned the Internet's overall effectiveness in getting more of the electorate to "go out an do something" with their attained knowledge, I think they vastly underestimate how much voters can actually do together online. Blogs, as many of you have already talked about, are a fantastic way for competing voices to be heard. We no longer have to sit around and listen to the candidates defend their stances; every day people from all over the country can do the same with blog posts, comments, rebuttals etc. Although there are no safeguards to existing bias I don't think there should be - save that restriction to the journalists who clearly can't live without it either. The internet also allows groups (interest, activist, what have you) to organize more effectively, raise funds, and spread their messages to a much wider public. Youtube played a large role in this year's primary elections, and I think it should continue to do so in future elections. I think most importantly, the Internet still has the potential to give rise to a legitimate third party in this country - a third option which the American public so desperately needs. In order for such a thing to happen however, the full potential of interactive media between candidate and voters must be realized.
As you can see, the list goes on and on. While there are problems (when are there not?) and disappointments in concern with the Internet, one cannot deny the positive effect it has, and will continue to have on the political process in this country. There are more political blogs to be born, more youtube debates to be had, and far more online 'e-mobilization' and organization to occur. While I'm hardly the optimist I'd like to think, or rather, I hope with patience comes great things. I myself, rely heavily on the Internet for my political information. While probably not as much as television, I get a great deal of op-ed pieces and general policy information via blogs, news outlets and other common political arenas. It's absolutely astounding to see how much information can be accessed and exists on all these sites.
Steve
I have always been of the opinion that one can never be too informed, especially when it comes to choosing our next leader. The main concern will always be, especially since the internet as a medium has no standards unlike newspapers and books with fact checking, is the source of where people are getting their information. Though Republicans have been complaining about the “liberal” media since the Nixon age, I’d prefer someone get their information from the New York Times than by the random rants of an opinionated, but ill educated stranger. In chapter 19 of Kaid’s “Handbook of Political Communication Research” it states that, “What delineates the Internet from traditional print and broadcast media, at least in theory, is that it’s communication network offers ordinary citizens unrestricted access and ability to voice their political agenda to a worldwide audience” (510). With that said, everything needs a balance so if someone wants to read an article on the CNN website, then watch The Daily Show on hulu, and then read the Drudge Report, then that’s that person’s right to be informed. As long as it is coming from a valid source, and “valid” is the loaded word, then the internet is the most resourceful source anyone can have. I probably rely on the internet, at this point and time and will probably change once the election comes closer, for about 85% of my knowledge. I don’t want much television coverage, but once the debates start that will change.
When it comes to the internet and its role in the election I feel that it has both positive and negative effects. Overall the internet is a great way for voters to find out more information about the candidates and their views on specific issues that they may be concerned about. However voters should be conscious of the fact that everything that they might be reading on the internet might not be true. "What delineates the Internet from traditional print and broadcast media, is that its communication network offers ordinary citizens unrestricted access and ability to voice their political agenda to a worldwide audience" (Kaid, 510). Just like you cant beleive everything you read in the newspaper or wherever, it is the same with online. I would be more inclined to believe what I read from Obama's and McCain's official website than I would be if I searched and found some random site. Voters also have to keep in mind that blogs are people OPINIONS and do not neccessarilly mean they are true facts. A blog is just a place where someone can put their thoughts out there and can get some feedback.
During this particular election I have used the internet a lot. The internet can be very convenient to catch up on highlights from speeches, conventions and other important things that I missed because of the particular time. I still watch television any chance that I can just to keep updated on polls or whatever else that may be on at that particular time. "Credibility of online information is at the source of much academic controversy and inquiry... verifying the validity of online information is very difficult to do without searching multiple sources for confirmation" (522). However I rely heaviest on the internet for the fact that it is convenient and you can most likely find whatever information that you may need from a reliable, accrediblenews source.
The internet literally is EVERYWHERE so I think it has a tremendous impact on EVERYTHING regarding the election.
I would not say that the internet helps in a positive or negative way, but rather it simply shows both lights. The internet is so large that a person can chose to go to a website pro-Republican or a website pro-Democrat and see what they want to see.
The internet could potentially be negative for someone because it puts information out right away, just as it happens, such as the Palin pregnancy reveal. However, it could also be positive because it then puts responses out right away, such as the Palin pregnancy response. What you get on the internet are quick results.
What's fascinating about the internet is that it possesses a tool that other forms of media do not necessarily always posses; a public voice.
The Handbook of Political Communication Research states that "what delineates the Internet from traditional print and broadcast media, at least in theory, is that its communication network offers ordinary citizens unrestricted access and ability to voice their political agenda to a worldwide audience" (510).
There lies the only danger of the internet; sometimes unreliable information. Sometimes, people can confuse opinion with fact. If somebody posts something not exactly true about one candidate, and then an unaware person reads the posting and believes it to be true, this could sway a vote. Therefore, people have to be careful and cautious about what they read on the Internet and how they decide to vote.
For me personally, this election, the Internet has had a heavy impact on my information intake regarding the election. Every time I go online, I spot a headline pertaining to the election and usually, if it seems important enough, I end up reading it. Even on websites that have no relevance to politics, one can find information or links pertaining to politics.
Post a Comment