Generation Engage

Starting at the local level, Generation Engage aims to educate and involve young people in politics in a non-partisan manner.  They simply want young people to be involved, and they foster the means for this.  Whether at a cyber café, house of worship or some other venue, this group seeks to involve youth who otherwise would not have access to political involvement. 

Founded in 2004, Generation Engage targets young voters, particularly those who have no college experience.  The aim of its founders was to close the political gap that plagues young voters and stimulate dialogue about politics and the future of our country. 

 According to its Web site, Generation Engage is built on three principles:

1.  Young people suffer not from a lack of interest, but from a lack of access

2. Our democracy should be a dialogue, not a monologue

3.  The best investment we can make in the future of our democracy is in young leaders at the local level

 Of course, technology plays a large part in this as well.  The group’s Facebook allows members with similar interests to interact, recruit other members and donate. As with many grass roots organizations, membership and donations are what drive the group.  It’s numbers are small, but opportunities are available for young people to become active and question local and national government in ways that were not an option when I was younger.

 

Generation Engage has provided opportunities for its members to interact with and question President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, and others – both during an election year and in off-years as well. 

  

But in an election year so contested as 2008, it’s imperative that young people are aware of politics.  As technology continues to bring people ever closer together, young voters are leading the way for new forms of communication and advancements in politics.  They are aware of local and international issues and use technology to connect with people across the globe.  It’s an incredible opportunity for young voters, and groups like this should be commended for their efforts to invest so much in our youth.

JibJab – Now This is Funny

Whether you love politics or hate politics, whether you’re voting red or voting blue, whether you’re sick of the negative campaigning yet or not, the new video from JibJab is for everyone and spares no one. 

 

 

I laughed out-loud during this video – especially the part when Bill, in his boxers with a sexy lady friend, mentions something about a cigar and simultaneously gets whacked over the head by Hill with a frying pan.   McCain keels over in the hospital.  Obama dances peacefully with the forest animals. 

 

And the best part?  You can have your own cameo – that’s always fun!  What better way to involve people than to make something that has nothing to do with them about them? 

 

Yes, this is sarcasm/wit/humor at its best.  Or worst, depending on your brand of humor, I guess.  But the difference between this and, for example, this week’s cover of The New Yorker…

 

 

…is that the JibJab video is obviously humorous.  The New Yorker’s statement that this is satire would be offensive if if weren’t so ridiculous.  Maybe they figured that since they were such obvious Obama supporters, they could get away with mocking the worst possible things that have been inferred and directly stated about him and his wife.  But the Obamas weren’t laughing.  And neither were the McCains.  Nor were the voters or the news media. 

 

But The New Yorker received a load of press about it.  If Obama wants to see the silver lining in this horrendously distasteful cover, it’s that media outlets from Fox News and CNN to local programs were saying, once again, that Obama is not a Muslim.  He is not a radical.  He does want to capture UBL.  Michelle Obama does love her country.  Also shocking in this fiasco was the Pew Research Center poll presented that showed just how many people in our country still believe Obama is a Muslim. 

 

 

 

As a former Midwesterner, I can safely guarantee that very few, if any, Midwesterners (or likeminded voters) read The New Yorker.  Maybe all the media attention around this cover actually did educate some of those who believed Obama was a Muslim to the truth about his faith and his values.  His supporters have a right to be upset and offended.  But they knew the truth to begin with and are still standing strong behind their candidate.

 

For now though, check out the JibJab video and remember to have a laugh about politics too.

Data Mining and Microtargeting

Data mining and microtargeting.  Two words that sound very boring.  But trust me, they’re very interesting, particularly because they contain a lot of information about you.  The boring connotations of data mining and microtargeting are countered by their very literal implementation.  Gathering statistics about voters and then tailoring specific messages to specific voters based on that information is the very short description.

 

The two practices were perfected by “the architect” Karl  Rove in the 2004 presidential election.  Yes, this guy…

 

 

Anyway, data mining and microtargeting are now heavily in play to determine who will vote for whom on election day 2008 and what can be done in the meantime to persuade voters one way or the other.  Data miners literally sift through tremendous amounts of information that has been stored in databases.  They search for anything useful in determining who’s blue and who’s red come November 4.  Once decided, these databases are used to microtarget, or cater specific messages to specific groups of people.  Direct mail, direct e-mail, cold calls, internet ads, and television ads are some of the ways to tailor messages to certain demographic groups. 

 

It should come as no shock that your personal information is up for grabs.  The practice seems like a violation of privacy, but it’s completely legal.  Credit card companies, for example, have mastered the art of making money off of you beyond standard annual and late fees.  They sell your information, and political parties are buying.  Consider these questions:  Do you pay taxes?  Own a home?  Own a car?  Use a credit card?  Have kids?  Have a degree?  Take vacations?  Buy pay-per-view movies?  Buy music online? Own a fishing license?  Have an EZ-Pass?  Vote?  If you have ever done any of these things, somewhere there’s a record of it. 

 

Both parties are perpetually updating and adding to their databases of voters.  There’s too much at stake, and the information is too readily available not to.  Then they cross reference and analyze and re-analyze the data about you, the voter, and tailor their messages accordingly.  The red guys call their database Voter Vault, while the blue guys are using a company called Catalist to compile their database.  It’s a safe bet that you’re in both.  And each group hits you with very specific messages in a variety of ways. 

 

We can only hope that they use this information to listen to the voice of the voters too, a simple concept that seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the way. 

James Kotecki

James Kotecki’s reporting and his style of reporting reminds me of an online, younger generation of The Daily Show.  He’s humorous and sarcastic, but also factual. 

 

Journalism must remain enterprising and embrace new technologies.  I would much rather be watching Kotecki

on Youtube than reading rehashed press releases that predate the 1972 election, as was noted in The Boys on the Bus.

 

Kotecki mentioned a story where Obama declined to sign a young student’s hand.  The mainstream press initially (and incorrectly) reported that Obama declined to give the kid a fist bump, provoking indignation and complete outrage.  But, thanks to a video posted online, the truth was revealed , thus forcing media outlets from ABC to James Kotecki to admit their error in reporting.  

 

 

 

Without technology the video would never have been taken and it would have never been posted to the Web.  Rumors would have spun out of control about how Obama slighted a child.  The Web corrected this.  Technology may mot give candidates any privacy, but they know this ahead of time.  But it does hold people accountable.  In this case ABC and every other media outlet who ran the false Obama story (including Kotecki) had the spotlight turned around on them. 

 

When Ron Paul visits your dorm room for an interview, you’re a journalist.  Maybe you’re an honorary journalist or a junior journalist (because the video is filmed in your dorm room), but you’re still a journalist.  As of July 3 when I watched the interview, 377,564 people had watched it before me.

 

 

 

His interview with Senator Mike Gravel only received 36,803 views, but that’s not worth discounting. 

 

 

 

 

Who the hell is Mike Gravel, you may ask?  He’s the guy who tried to steal Obama Girl from Obama…

 

(He was also a presidential candidate!) 

 

  

The point is, Kotecki was enterprising.  He also interviewed five other candidates, including Mike Huckabee and John Edwards.  That’s a pretty impressive feat for a kid from Georgetown to accomplish.

 

Kotecki’s style and audience may be different than Chris Matthews, but he has a following.  His followers are largely from a different generation than Matthews’s followers.  They demand a different type of journalism. 

 

There’s no question to me that Kotecki is a journalist.  He’s a new type of journalist, embracing the new mediums that are available.  It’s not that the “old school” journalists are on the way out – yet.  It would be tough to argue that Rush Limbaugh, who just signed a $400 million contract to remain a radio commentator through 2016, is on the way out.

 

In fact, the contract is unprecedented.  Say what you want about Rush, but you have to be pretty successful to command this salary.  He may seem old school to some and may be despised by others, but $400 million speaks for itself.

 

There is room in the industry for all types, from the Kotecki’s to the Limbaugh’s, and that’s what we’re seeing.  It’s what keeps us competitive and strong as a nation, and it’s what keeps our politicians accountable.  Some may even call it “the American Way.” 

 

 

2008 Personal Democracy Forum (Fundraising Week)

 

I don’t need a president who knows the ins and outs of Twitter, Google Reader and more sophisticated programs.  There are far more important things for the President to focus on.  However, it’s dangerous and shortsighted to not have a working knowledge or basic comprehension of the internet.  The internet is not a fluke; it is not a trend or a fad with a short shelf-life.  It has, in fact, revolutionized communication, and will continue to move in new, dynamic directions.  True, there is a generational divide that separates the candidates, but that’s no excuse for McCain to not have basic knowledge of the power of the internet and the subsequent empowerment of those who use it.

 

Zephyr Teachout made a good point when, at the Personal Democracy Forum, she said the presidency is the least democratic institution and has not served as a successful check on corruption.  Technology, she states, can be used to “suck a lot of power out of Washington and the federal government” and put it back into the states.  Jeff Jarvis supported that line of thinking by noting that, “with technology, we have the opportunity to open government in new ways.” 

 

Obviously, certain decisions need to remain in the hands of informed decision-makers.  National security issues, for example, must be kept to those in the know.  The government has largely shifted away from its accountability, but the internet and new technologies are bringing that accountability around full-circle.  Voters are sharing their personal insight more than ever in the past.  It’s not that they didn’t want to before, but now they have the means to do so.  As Jay Rosen said, media has now taken the form of many producers speaking to many people.  Mass media still has tremendous impact on information dissemination, but the major outlets are not solely shaping news coverage.

 

Youth are involved in greater numbers than ever before.  Credit is due to executives at MTV Networks for their Rock the Vote efforts that have been tirelessly executed for as long as I can remember.  Though they tried, they did not impact America’s youth the way that the internet has. 

 

Barack Obama has received an overwhelming show of support from his online supporters, from blogs to videos to donations.  Traditional media may seem boring and outdated to a lot of people.  The internet allows people to actually be involved in a presidential campaign.  Obama is taking a beating for not accepting public campaign financing.  True, he made a different pledge about public financing that is causing those on the right to shout “hypocrisy.”  I don’t think the argument will sustain, nor will it have much, if any, impact on Obama supporters (or even those who may still be undecided).  I would argue that this is yet another example of how 2008 is a different presidential race than ever before.  It would be hard to find a candidate who would truthfully take public campaign financing when the alternative is so much better.   

 

The ideas and opinions expressed at the Personal Democracy Forum are things that the candidates should take seriously.  Subsequent elections will look back at this historic time and analyze and second guess and “what if” to no end.  Who knows where all of this technology leads, but it is exciting to be a part of it now, aware of the changes that are taking place.

Voter-Generated Content

Obama’s Facebook page may be campaign generated, but his 1million + friends are voter generated.  From Facebook, voters can interact with one another, ‘friend’ each other, discuss the campaign, view past speeches, follow Obama’s path toward the White House and, in general, feel as though they are connected to Obama and his campaign of change.  Further, type in the name “Barack Obama” in Facebook’s search, and over 500 profiles are returned.  I didn’t personally check that every single profile was in relation to the presidential candidate, but a safe assumption may be that a majority of them deal with either Obama or the 2008 election in some way.  Here, voters can create their own Obama groups, and likeminded voters can join and share. 

 

YouTube has provided an unprecedented amount of voter-generated content, even compared to other voter-generated Web sites.  Voters have a true voice here.  They actually impact a campaign’s performance and are cause for discussion on both sides of the political divide.  With a click, they can be watched and re-watched, forwarded, and commented on.  The phenomenon is amazing, and literally anyone can voice their opinion through the video medium.  Celebrities post their presidential endorsements via the same medium that the average guy posts his homemade video.  YouTube even co-hosted a debate with CNN.  When Anderson Cooper hosts a debate with an online video sharing Web site, it’s safe to assume that the Web site is a major player.  As I mentioned in previous posts, Obama Girl, Blue Balled and the 1984/Hillary Clinton commercial achieved notoriety with YouTube.  These are just a few well-known examples, but they are a drop in the bucket in terms of voter-generated, campaign influencing YouTube content.

 

 

Ron Paul became a hit because of voter generated content via the Web.  Unfortunately for him and his campaign, this alone wasn’t enough.  But it proved that the power of the internet wasn’t just a fluke for people like Obama.  As a Libertarian, Paul appealed to the internet junkies and younger generations who turn to the Web for news.  Mainstream media may not have given Ron Paul a fair shake, but his online success made people take notice.  Ron Paul wouldn’t have been a mainstream contender if information dissemination was strictly through traditional routes.  Not that he was a serious contender via the internet.  But his internet fame and support was enough for him to be noticed and for his opinions to be taken seriously. 

 

Futuremajority.com is a site written by youth voters for youth voters.  The site gives updates on the campaign trail, links to other relevant sites, posts blogs, features YouTube videos, registers voters and gives facts and figures on youth voter turnout, among other things.  It’s a one-stop-shop for young voters.  True, this information is compiled in the same ways on many other sites, but this is directed at youth voters, many of whom will be voting in their first election. 

Mousepads, Shoe Leather, and Hope

 

In the book Mousepads, Shoe Leather and Hope, Michael Silberman’s account of his experience with the Howard Dean campaign and with campaign manager Joe Trippi gives a true insider’s look at something new in campaigning.  I would argue that no campaign feels as though it completely upholds the status quo of campaigns past.  Resources change, mediums change and people change.  With these changes come new forms of reaching voters. 

 

Silberman stated that, during his time on the Dean campaign, the shift from broadcast politics to the old-fashioned, person-to-person, word-of-mouth politics was being felt.  I would argue that, in its earlier days, the internet didn’t perpetuate much person-to-person dialogue, but there was definitely a shift away from broadcasters having the sole dominant position on the mass distribution of a campaign’s information and messaging. 

 

It’s true that this was a new type of campaign.  However, new forms of media and communications are the constant change that has been seen over time, and campaigns must be ready for, adapt to and take advantage of the change.  In 1948, the advent of the television began to transform politics.  In 1972, journalism took a turn, and reporters had an impact on the campaign as never before.  Candidates in the 2000 presidential election had to consider the internet as a serious player in campaigning.  As Silberman notes, 2004 brought about advancements that were made-up as campaign staffers went-on.  And 2008 has seen fundraising via the internet that is unprecedented.  From Barack Obama to Ron Paul, the internet has transformed campaigns, shaped our major players and left others in the dust. 

 

In its earlier days, the net had the tendency to remove the human element from communications.  Personal responses to email, phone calls and digital videos make all the difference in this case.  These small gestures are so important in building trust among people who have never met each other and  keeping them motivated. It’s also often easy to forget that volunteers are real people with real lives and families.  They volunteer their time because they believe in something, and it makes all the difference if the leaders recognize that, as Silberman and his team did.  Further, broadcast coverage of the internet only validated its role to volunteers. 

 

Not to be forgotten in all of the new media was the grunt work of a grass-roots operation.  Someone to put together Meetup kits, send them out, answer phones, respond to emails, maintain databases, update Web content…  So much of the effort was not high-level work, yet it still had to be done. 

 

Silberman also notes that, while the new media was underway, a traditional campaign was simultaneously being run.  Numbers still had to be analyzed and strategy needed to be planned.  The internet, as he notes, was simply the enabler for something new in campaigning.  Who knows what the next four years will bring.

Red Blogs & Blue Blogs – Day 4

If there were similarites over the four days of blog comparison, I sure didn’t see them…

 

Townhall.com took a look at Barack Obama today in several postings.  Two of these deal with his current struggles to find a VP vetting team.  Another article goes to great lengths to defend the Obama candidacy in the face of rumors that have plagued his campaign recently: Michelle Obama’s alleged use of the word “whitey” in a speech at their former church and the accusation that Obama is a secret Muslim intent on the destruction of America.

 

Daily Kos was another story.  I could barely get through the rants of the posts, much less the reader comments, to figure out what was being said.  From what I could gather, the general sentiments were along the lines of:  the GOP is an “embarrassing failure,” John McCain is a gozillion years old (apparently his birth certificate was found in a cave and is written in a language that, according to dailykos.com, has been dead for 1,900 years – yet somehow they managed to translate it – so witty and humorous over there at dailykos.com), and George Bush has single handedly managed to wreck the US economy.  This goes beyond the definition of “politics.”

Red Blogs & Blue Blogs – Day 3

The top item on Daily Kos discusses voters in Washington state, saying, “I don’t think they’re too gung-ho for 100 more years in Iraq, or four more years of the Bush agenda.”  A blog is understood to be a compilation of opinions, but these statements come across as facts, which is dangerous, misleading, and, at the risk of sounding trite, unfair.  When John McCain spoke about 100 more years in Iraq, he was speculating and speaking in broad terms.  Dailykos.com would have readers believe that McCain is pushing for legislation to guarantee 100 more years in Iraq. 

 

 

The main story on townhall.com boasts “Big-Mac:  The Taxpayer-Friendly Candidate.”  This leaves readers with the assumption that not only is Obama less taxpayer-friendly, but also that McCain is the only taxpayer-friendly candidate.  Last night’s post detailing Obama’s flip-flopping on the issue was the perfect lead-up for this.  But, I can only speculate that, when looked at closely, both candidates may have said things that could be misconstrued as being on both sides of most issues.  I think that’s called “politics.”

Red Blogs & Blue Blogs – Day 2

Tonight I thought I’d check out some of the reader comments/discussions on the blogs.  On Daily Kos, one word sums up a sizable majority of the responses:  angry.  Angry at Bush.  Angry at the Republican party.  Angry at Republican pundits.  Words like smug, smarmy, sexist, loathsome and extremist, to name a few.  A thread about the price of gas garnered the following responses about President Bush:  “What a dumbass,” “He can’t be gone soon enough,” “He’s such a schmuck,” “He doesn’t care because his buddies will insulate him from reality,” and on and on.  Angry?  Yes. 

 

The folks at townhall.com focused more on the upcoming election and not at all on a presidency that’s in its twilight.  The reader responses were equally one-sided, but not nearly as angry.  Two articles discussing how McCain and Obama differ on economics were answered with one post that was incredibly detailed – a breakdown of Obama campaign quotes detailing how he has flip-flopped on the issue.  Overall, the responses weren’t as angry or in-your-face at those at Daily Kos, but, dishearteningly, there were enough about the “black guy” to make me squirm in my seat.

 

But it seems the angrier the audience, the more responses a post receives.  In blogging, does silence mean consent?  I always find it more helpful to leave emotion at the door, and people will take you (and your message) more seriously.