techPresident - debates - Comments

Get the math right

theflyer — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:13:25 -0500

If the average YouTube clip is 9.75 minutes and the average TV sound bite is 7.2 seconds, then the actual difference is more than 81 times as long, not 10 times because the two numbers are in different units.

9.75 minutes equals 585 seconds. 585 seconds divided by 7.2 seconds is 81.25.

Other campaigns using Eventful

Alex Hunsucker — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:04:52 -0500

Actually, Ron Paul and John Edwards are not the only campaigns using Eventful extensively. Huckabee, Thompson, and Obama are all using the site in the same way to message supporters in primary states about upcoming events.

Obama has let everyone know throughout Nevada about all his appearances, as Huckabee has done in both MI and SC. Huckabee has even asked his supporters to Demand him around the country so he can use Eventful to notify his supporters and build crowds in future primary states. Meanwhile, Fred Thompson has posted an Eventful calendar on his website about his Iowa and South Carolina bus tours, not only letting his supporters know about events, but also all of Eventful's users, as well as our 500+ data syndicators.

Many of the campaigns are using Eventful to build crowds at campaign events through our local messaging tools, actually turning online activity into real world crowds.

Both political parties are ignoring the web

davidfarrar — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:58:20 -0500

While political candidates are increasingly cognisant of the communicative power of the web, I venture to say, most political parties are absolutely frightened to death of the web's vast communicative power. Whoever has the power to effectively communicate, has political power. It is precisely for this reason the communicative power of our major political parties has largely been taken over by the moneyed interest and the political elite, least someone tells the people.

As a classic example of this process in action, please go to," How to throw the 2008 election".

ex animo
davidfarrar
The National Online Party

I honestly watched the

Jeff Commaroto — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:10:19 -0500

I honestly watched the debate with the laptop closed so I did not see what was happening on Facebook. I also watched it an hour later so the whole "live" thing didn't reach me anyway.

With that said I am curious about the makeup of the people watching. Did you get a sense of the politics of the people talking on Facebook? Because from the brief moments where Diane Sawyer was asking the girl watching the Interactive end, I had the impression it was an overwhelmingly liberal audience. The moment I chuckled at was when the woman reported that people online were disappointed that Republicans did not "discuss the environment more" or were not satisfied or something.

I am looking over the Facebook page now and it seems to pretty much be the very liberal Obama/Edwards/Ron Paul/Push John McCain as the Republican candidate crowd that takes over a great deal of the online discussion. If that is true I don't know exactly what tapping into this audience would have added.

Cup o' Joe

shelbinator — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:57:36 -0400

I think if snagging a few minutes outside of a press event counts as Barack Obama's response to the Why Tuesday? challenge, then certainly cornering Joe Biden outside of a coffeeshop and getting some answers out of him counts as well.

Obama opens up online phone bank

Peter Erickson — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:21:07 -0400

Obama is opening up a distributed phone bank online. You sign into the website and receive a list of phone numbers to call to spread the word on a policy position --- in this case, the Iraq war.

Kind of nifty. Here's the site.

Ron Paul doesn't....

rtester — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:52:02 -0400

...run or hide! That's my response to this. Maybe you don't see him as a "leading candidate," but if you knew the fact that he won 2 straw polls this past weekend by LANDSLIDE proportions(in New Hampshire 73% and Alabama 81%), you might realize what is sweeping across America.....the Ron Paul Revolution! It's based on honesty, transparency, authenticity, and FREEDOM.....and by the way, YouTube is a big part of it, as you can clearly see from the statistics on this website. He never shied away from the CNN-YouTube debate you mentioned, as his "leading candidate" Republican counterparts did, and he has many, many more YouTube views and subscribers than any other candidate, Dem or Rep! No, the only "running" Dr. Paul is doing is for the presidency, and he definitely isn't doing any hiding.

I love your conclusion

cfinnie — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:41:21 -0400

I hope this increase in visibility will lead to candidates who realize that "being themselves instead of being controlled might help them better connect with voters." That's what drew so many of us to Howard Dean. However, I doubt too many of today's politicians have forgotten how much one unscripted "Yeah" cost his campaign less than 4 years ago. How much spin the media put on an essentially accurate 4-year-old interview from Canada about how easy it would be to manipulate the Iowas caucuses. Having been there in 2004, I could really see all the things he talked about and how they could be used just as he said. I also saw how it hurt him.

I would truly like to believe we're moving in the direction you and Gibson posit. But 2004 isn't so far in the past that many candidates are likely to forget it yet.

Invert that panopticon

Josh Koenig — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:39:58 -0400

It's a bit of a horserace at the moment, whether information technology will have a net liberating or oppressive effect. Our people jump at their own shadows and China scares the crap out of me on this stuff, but I'm still optimistic.

None can conceive of a world where being "always on" is anything but a dangerous trap, where being themselves instead of being controlled might help them better connect with voters.

Any articulation of this idea runs the risk of sounding like some kind of starry-eyed hippy jive-talk, but I really think that our ability to deal with most of the crushingly complex problems we're facing pivots on whether or not we can actually be honest with one another. A big part of that is getting past the overt kabuki that passes for most political debate. Here's hoping.

Information Wants to Be Free

Alan Rosenblatt — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:35:34 -0400

Gibson's response is a nice logical extension of his original Neuromancer thme, "information wants to be free."

I agree the truth with come out. That is why in this YouTube world, where we are all under the watchful eye of cameras and wiretaps, authenticity trumps the scripted campaign. People want candidates to speak from their hearts and minds. If they don't, they will be outed.

Also, Micah, I am happy to see you correctly spelled Condoleeeeeeezzzzzza. (I wish I could).

Alan Rosenblatt
Executive Director, Internet Advocacy Center
AKA DrDigiPol (drdigipol.com)

Ummm.

David All — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 10:23:13 -0400

Yes. I know all about it ;)

________________________________________
David All
The David All Group
http://davidallgroup.com
________________________________________

Jokes and journalism

AirCongress — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:37:27 -0400

Yes, of course I agree that the CNN/YouTube debate was a breath of fresh air by getting citizens involved. And in hindsight, I'll concede that my rhetoric from the AirCongress post was a bit over the top. That happens sometimes in blogging.

The post was my impulsive reaction after seeing PoliticsTV favor the silliness of the debate over the substance. I had seen the same thing elsewhere, including when I went back and read the transcript and watched the debate clips, and I think it reflects the take-away from the debate. In other words, if the silliness is what people remember about the debate, then the debate was silly.

So while CNN and YouTube didn't intend to perpetrate a joke, when people look back at this particular debate years from now, I'd say there's a strong possibility that it will be remembered as much for that as for the technological and democratic innovation. I think that's a shame.

As for that "journalistic hat," I'd say it won't fit many people at all if no opinions are allowed. You've just eliminated all of the columnists and editorial writers of the world, and 99 percent of the bloggers, including the ones who write for techPresident -- and I've seen some good journalism here, even though it's obviously injected with opinion.

Danny

Hats

Joshua Levy — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:05:40 -0400

Danny -

I agree that CNN and YouTube deserve criticism for their handling of the debate, but I was surprised to see you write that the debate "was not a serious exercise in democracy" and call it a "big joke perpetrated by CNN, YouTube and a small segment of the electorate on the rest of America." Was it democratic enough? No. Does the format need work? Yes. Was CNN's partnership with YouTube all about good television? Mostly. But, as I think you'll agree, there was still something new in the air, thanks in large part to the participation of thousands of everyday Americans.

I think we disagree about the quality of the questions asked. To me, the vast majority were thoughtful and challenging -- more than we can say about many of the questions asked by the pros at these events. Again, I was surprised that you were so critical of them; I reacted strongly because I sensed a criticism of those regular people in your comments. Saying that CNN and YouTube played a joke on us implies that we're too stupid to notice...

Taking off the journalistic hat means just that - you injected more opinion into your post than I've seen before, and I noted it. There's nothing wrong with that; I was just pointing it out.

What Danny really yearns for

AirCongress — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:46:35 -0400

Josh,

You "guess Danny yearns for the good old days when televised debates were the pinnacles of democracy"? Why don't you ask Danny what he thinks -- or better yet read my blogs a little more closely. Nothing I have written about the CNN/YouTube debates, at AirCongress or Beltway Blogroll, suggests that I think yesterday's tired televised debate format is worth continuing as is. In fact, I'm one of the people who has argued that Republicans need to accept the invitation to their own CNN/YouTube debate, despite the flaws of the first session.

As for taking off my journalist's hat, what exactly do you mean? That I can't criticize other media outlets (CNN and YouTube) and still be a journalist? I critique the work of both bloggers and journalists on a regular basis at Beltway Blogroll, and I'm pretty sure National Journal considers my work there journalistic.

We're on the same page here. We both want better presidential debates -- ones that use the Internet effectively to engage the electorate; that feature insightful, substantive questions from citizens; and that elicit candid, informative answers from the candidates. So I'm not sure why you decided to take a potshot at me today.

You're well within your journalistic rights to do so, just as I am to criticize CNN, YouTube and citizens who are more interested in a cheap laugh or their 15 seconds of online video fame than in getting straight talk from candidates. But I don't think it gets either of us any closer to our shared goal.

Danny

Ron Paul spends 3rd-least on Internet

edmondthehun — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:58:43 -0400

The above link puts Paul's minimum online spending as the third-lowest of all the candidates, and several degrees behind the party leaders. This should firmly debunk any lingering notion that Paul's unmatchable online presence is caused by a deliberate, organized focus and not simply a result of his passionate and growing support. Instead, it is the other candidates who are spending money and trying to play "catch-up."