A challenge, and maybe an answer
I was reading the South Dakota Blog Watch's post entitled Piling on Thune and saw that the SDBWM might be interested in hearing my opinion on the power of blogs in a campaign.
But my opinion is; don't think of them as a totally new medium. Don't think these as a new idea in campaigns. Consider for a moment that it's just a new twist on an old medium. Weblogs are really just a new twist on the good, old fashioned letter to the editor.
Instead of a newspaper, we have a webpage medium with, but usually without the guidelines of an editor reigning them in (or checking for accuracy or truthfulness). Otherwise, there's not much difference that I can see. Go back 10 or 15 years, and you can find letters to the editor, or "different voices" columns with every bit of quoting and outtakes to support one's own viewpoint as you'd find in any Sibby column.
And it works now, just like it did back then. Get enough people to start piling on letters to the editor on specific issues or topics, and eventually, the MSM are going to begrudgingly start to look into it. Well, it's still the same, except we have weblogs dogpiling on Thune, and the monolith of the MSM are starting to move in response.
If a person hands a reporter a press release with outlandish charges on it involving a political opponent, say, "John Doe kicks puppies." It's going to be ignored.
But start a letter to the editor campaign all touching on the topic, and it's going to seem as if the whole community is concerned. "Why is John Doe Kicking Puppies?" "Has someone reported the puppy kicking to the SPCA", "Ten puppies were taken to the vet today with bruises. Are they the product of John Doe's puppy kicking campaign?", and so on. If the whole community is concerned, the media are going to feel an obligation to react. If the press can be moved sufficiently, legitimate or not, then it's entirely possible that a candidate (or incumbent) is going to be compelled to act.
Now the newness thing of this, is that because it's instant and digital, Weblogs are monitored constantly by the media. You couldn't do that before with letters to the editor. I think we've seen it when the MSM picks up on Blog Chatter and runs with it, sometimes not even bothering to verify it. It's one of the inherent dangers in this digital age. Where before it was okay, let's set up a press conference for tomorrow, in the new weblog/internet age, the negative or false allegation might do irreparable damage in a day.
The big question on all of this, are candidate and their staffs going to pay attention to the blogosphere, or are they going to dismiss it as the fringe? If they do pay attention, the big question - how much do they react? Just like in the old fashioned letter to the editor campaigns, except blogs demand that instantaneous response.
My prediction? What you may see come of this in the long run are more technical staff on campaigns. Not devoted to databases and data networking, but to internet monitoring and response.
Just my 2 cents worth. And if anyone is hiring campaign staff in the Brookings area, I can google with the best of them.
But my opinion is; don't think of them as a totally new medium. Don't think these as a new idea in campaigns. Consider for a moment that it's just a new twist on an old medium. Weblogs are really just a new twist on the good, old fashioned letter to the editor.
Instead of a newspaper, we have a webpage medium with, but usually without the guidelines of an editor reigning them in (or checking for accuracy or truthfulness). Otherwise, there's not much difference that I can see. Go back 10 or 15 years, and you can find letters to the editor, or "different voices" columns with every bit of quoting and outtakes to support one's own viewpoint as you'd find in any Sibby column.
And it works now, just like it did back then. Get enough people to start piling on letters to the editor on specific issues or topics, and eventually, the MSM are going to begrudgingly start to look into it. Well, it's still the same, except we have weblogs dogpiling on Thune, and the monolith of the MSM are starting to move in response.
If a person hands a reporter a press release with outlandish charges on it involving a political opponent, say, "John Doe kicks puppies." It's going to be ignored.
But start a letter to the editor campaign all touching on the topic, and it's going to seem as if the whole community is concerned. "Why is John Doe Kicking Puppies?" "Has someone reported the puppy kicking to the SPCA", "Ten puppies were taken to the vet today with bruises. Are they the product of John Doe's puppy kicking campaign?", and so on. If the whole community is concerned, the media are going to feel an obligation to react. If the press can be moved sufficiently, legitimate or not, then it's entirely possible that a candidate (or incumbent) is going to be compelled to act.
Now the newness thing of this, is that because it's instant and digital, Weblogs are monitored constantly by the media. You couldn't do that before with letters to the editor. I think we've seen it when the MSM picks up on Blog Chatter and runs with it, sometimes not even bothering to verify it. It's one of the inherent dangers in this digital age. Where before it was okay, let's set up a press conference for tomorrow, in the new weblog/internet age, the negative or false allegation might do irreparable damage in a day.
The big question on all of this, are candidate and their staffs going to pay attention to the blogosphere, or are they going to dismiss it as the fringe? If they do pay attention, the big question - how much do they react? Just like in the old fashioned letter to the editor campaigns, except blogs demand that instantaneous response.
My prediction? What you may see come of this in the long run are more technical staff on campaigns. Not devoted to databases and data networking, but to internet monitoring and response.
Just my 2 cents worth. And if anyone is hiring campaign staff in the Brookings area, I can google with the best of them.
Comments
The bloggers are getting more fearless in their "reporting", getting to a point where some blogs become the "Washington Post" of blogs, while others become the "National Enquirer". In campaign, perception can become reality very quickly.
Regardless of the subject matter, we all know .5% of the vote is the difference between a job and becoming an answer to a bet on who gets to pay for the coffee. Campaigns must control, or at least react to, the subject matter in the blogosphere.