Cyrus Krohn & GOP.com

I think the main difference between the Democrat’s online platform and the Republican’s online platform is that the Dems have done it, well, better.  They started earlier with their online endeavors.  Their constituents embraced the technological involvement of the 2008 Presidential race.  Certain Republicans did too – Ron Paul’s backers rallied tremendously online – but overall, their efforts were far less commendable.

Cyrus Krohn has a huge responsibility with GOP.com.  Where do the Republicans go technologically if McCain doesn’t win in November?  GOP.com is definitely a step in the right direction for the Republicans, one that, win or lose, needs to be continually advanced. 

But a few criticisms, if I might…

First, the site takes forever to load (as do other links when I clicked on them), which is an unnecessary frustration.  Those valuable few seconds give me the opportunity to type a different address into my browser and be on my way.  If I want to join the GOP, make a donation to the cause or read some dish about an opponent, don’t give me an excuse not to by taking too long to load the page.

At any given time, visitors might think this is an Obama Web site at first glance: 

null

Give opponents their due, but chances are that people who visit this site are voting for McCain to begin with.  Obama information is absolutely necessary, but it doesn’t have to be front and center. 

Finding the donation application widget took me two days, four phone calls and an email.  Turns out that the widget isn’t even part of GOP.com – it’s part of meetbarackobama.com, one of the RNC’s other sites that’s linked-to from the GOP.com homepage.  Confused yet?  I would suggest making this much easier to find or simply posting it on the homepage.  It’s a great tool, but why is it buried?

 

The staggering amount of data about voters that is collected, cross-referenced and analyzed is overwhelming but impressive.  I assume that both parties have equally detailed databases.  People tend to feel as if their privacy has been invaded, but it should be no surprise that the bottom line of this technology is money, power and influence – on both sides. 

Of course it’s easier to point out the negatives.  Overall, the site looks great.  It’s networks – Facebook, del.icio.us and digg to name a few – are readily available. The RNC’s YouTube page is richly designed and opens with this video:

But again, all pages seem to take forever to load, which only perpetuates the impression that Republicans are old, stodgy and behind the times. 

Krohn had a right to be proud of the “Republican Platform Committee” page. 

For once in the tech realm, the Republicans had something great and they had it first.  The site is very interactive, allowing for both text and video entries.  It also was a wise call to allow (almost) everything to post.  Nothing should be hidden, especially when internet viewers are lurking in the shadows, ready at a moments notice to jump on an inaccuracy or inconsistency.  Also, the Valentines were funny and unique in their simplicity.  I’d definitely send one out!

Just a few criticisms, but overall, well-done, Republicans.

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.” 

 

 

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.